DC

,6*
STONYHURST
PHILOSOPHICAL SERIES

copy

LOGIC

RICHARD

F.

CLARKE,

S.J.

IMPRESSION

LONGMANS,
39 FOURTH PATERNOSTER
AVENUE BOMBAY, "

GREEN
ROW,
3OTH

AND
LONDON
NEW
MADRAS

CO

STREET,
AND

YORK

CALCUTTA,

TQ2I

KOKHAMPTON

PRINTED

EY

JOHN

GRIFFIH

PREFACE.

WHEN

Scholastic of and than of the it

Philosophy study
as

ceased in

to

be Univer historical

th"

subject
sities,
rather branch than

systematic
was

Protestant

regarded
a

possessing
interest,
there

an

scientific

was

one

that

was

treated Ethics

with and

less

dishonour
in

rest.

In

Metaphysics,
the

Psychology
handed
turies down

and

Natural

Theology,
tradition unbroken

principles
for
cen

by
to

came

be

looked

upon

as

antique

curio

sities,
of
human

or

as

merely
progress

illustrating
and human aside

the

development
These of of the

thought.
as

sciences

were

either of

set

things

past,

consisting
value,
new or

fine else basis.

-spun

subtleties

no

practical
on
an

they
But

were

reconstructed

entirely
Its

with and

Logic
its

it

was

different. method

underlying
not
so

principles
and of

received

were

closely
system

obviously theology.
It

interlaced
admitted

with

the

discarded

riii

PREFACE.

of bring
with had the
not

more

easilybrought
of the direct
moreover,

into apparent

harmony
because Catholic
to

doctrines the
same

Reformation,

it

bearing
far who
were

on

dogma.
the

It was,

less had

formidable
no

ordinary

student.

Those

stomach

for the able with

to

Science

of
a

Being,
certain the

nevertheless

quite

acquire
Science

moderate Laws

acquaintance
Thought.
the
Men

the

and

of

chopped chopped
men,

Logic harmlessly, and

was

Logic

they

the

traditional

Logic

of the
The

School

with
Dean

some

slight modifications.
has in in
not

text-book

of from

Aldrich, which
is mediaeval

yet disappeared

Oxford,
;

its

phraseology

and

its method
where
unawares
"

mediaeval, too,
occasional

its

principles, except
crept
in
of

an

inconsistency has
new

from

the

learning.
and and
assumes

It

still talks
existence

second
an

intentions,"
Infima

the

of

Species,
of

has

throughout
realism

the of

wholesome sound
But

flavour

the

moderate

philosophy.
this
state

of

things

could of

not

last.

Sir

\V.

Hamilton,
forth in

the his

champion
on

conceptualism,
a

put

Lectures

Logic

theory of
with

intellectual the

apprehension
doctrine

quite
which

inconsistent

traditional and

still

lingered in the
Aldrich. who

meagre

obscure

phraseology

of Dean

Sir

W.

Hamilton's

disciple,Denn

Mansel,

P KEF

ACE.

I*

carried his

on

the had

work

of

philosophic scepticism which

an

master

inaugurated, published explanatory

out

edition

of Aldrich, with which

Stuart grasp tuted
a

notes

and
errors,

appendices,
while
a

pointed

his far

supposed
more

John
wider substi

Mill, with
than either the

ability and
two

of

the

just named,
of

for

halting conceptualism
which had but
a

Hamilton

nominalism
to

thin the

veil of
utter

plausible

fallacies which

hide

from

mankind

scepticism

lay beneath
then,
the the

it.
Kantian

Since which has the

principle of antinomies
of Mansel in and Hamilton under and

underlies

Logic
to

boldly
shadow

come

the

front
name

England
of

of

the

great

Hegel,

English logicians
under the
or

have

either
one or

ranged
other
to
cover

themselves these the with

new

banner else

of have

of

schools,

sought
one

glaring patches
student

inconsistencies borrowed
has each in the
a

of
the

some

of until

them

from

others,

the
a

modern series his

own,

bewildering choice
of
whom end
to

among
a

of

guides, leading

follows

path of
and
are

obscurity
who and and

confusion
all united the

and in

self-

contradiction, but
that

this,

they discard

misrepresent
of the is

traditional

teaching of Aristotle
Their in facility
so

mediaeval

logicians.
to

doing
no

partly owing
treatise

the

fact that Aristotle

has

methodical

cover-

PREFACE.

ing

the

ground
a

of

modern

Logic,
of

and

St. Thomas

gives merely
of it in of the the
one

rapid

sketch

the

technical from the

part
pages

of his

Opuscula.
of

But

great

philosopher
Doctor

Pagan
middle

times
ages,

and
can

of
be

Angelic

of

the

gathered by
necessary teacher

the

careful
modern

student

all the

principles
Catholic their diffi

for the of

logician. Every
of

Logic
finds

follows in them
treatment

necessitycloselyin
solution
at

steps, and

the
"

of every the

culty,
treatment
can

and
"

the of

least

incidental that

almost

every

question

Logic

propose.

The ancient
as

modern

school the
the very

of

Logic departs
the
reader The

from will

the
see

from
studies
are

as first,

he

following
The

pages.

very

foun

dations

different.

Principle of
system

Contradic
to

tion is in the that of

Hamiltonian Stuart

subordinated
goes

Identity,while
the

Mill
set

still further

astray, and
The
account

Hegelians
these

it

altogether aside.
schools of the the
which

given by
intellectual notion

various

process idea leads

or

of

apprehension
is arrived
The

by

which
one

general
an

at, is

to

utter

scepticism. knowledge

Doctrine

of the

of relativity with all

human

is
the

no

less at variance

positivetruth, while
to

modern

theory of
on

LJniversals attempts of
the Scholastic

establish

itself
a

the

ruins

Realism

by

gross

misrcpre-

PREFACE.

scntation
means.

of

what

Scholastic

Realism

really

It is the
to

object
the

of the

present

Manual into

of
the
out

Logic
safe where

Lad

back

English
wisdom,

student
to

paths

of

the
the

ancient

point

it is that
have and

speculations of
the well-trodden

modern

philosophizcrs
road

quitted
to at

high

of truth,
of incon

least and

indicate

the

precipices
to

sistency
conduct
to

self-contradiction

which allows

they
himself

the

unhappy
them.

learner It

who

be
a

guided by compendious
the

is,however,
like

impossible,
discuss
errors

in
at

text-book

this, to
of
of the

length

various the

ramifications schools therefore

as

through
pone

which

different It has

to-day

have

utterlyastray.
writer
to

been far
as

the aim

of the
the
one

select

for attack,
error

possible,
or

central
most

and

distinctive

of in the

each,
eyes

the the

likely to
reader

throw
the

dust very the

of

incautious

from

beginning. primary object

aimed
in

This, however,
at.

is not
a

The

need

of

Catholic
to

text-book which
are

of

Logic
in

English, corresponding
use

those and of of

general
been the

in Protestant felt
on

schools sides students in

Universities, has
the
our

long
more

both

Atlantic.
Catholic is
a

To

advanced

Colleges important
Yet there

thorough grounding
in their

Logic

most

clement

intellectual

cultivation.

ill

PREFACE.

has

been

hitherto hands

no

text-book
purposes

which of the

could

be

put

into The

their Latin

for the

private study.
basis of the
are
mere

treatises

which

form
young

lectures

attended unsuited
for

by

the

ecclesiastic from the

quite

them,

apart
Their their

difficulties of the

language.
of

strange

phrase
cut

ology, the
dried

technicalities

the style,
advance

and

method

they

pursue

in their their

from

principlesto conclusions,
from them
an

complete
and

severance

modern

habits

of

thought

speech, render
without

unintelligibleto

ordinary
the

students

elaborate

explanationon
to
cover

part of the teacher.

with

He

has

the

dry

bones

flesh,

to

translate,and enlarge, illustrate,

and simplify, he
any
can

often the in his

entirely reconstruct,
average

before
rouse

reach

intelligenceor

interest

pupils.
The been

English
more

text-books than
a

hitherto

issued from
work

have the in
text not

little

literal translation have

done
a

Latin, and

though
students
own

they

good

furnishing
books
in

unversed

in

Latin

with have

their the

language, yet they

task

attempted
into

further

of

translatingscholastic
It is
our

nineteenth-centuryphraseology.
Manual may

hoped
in

that the present

put before
branch

Catholic
a

youth
more

this

most

important
attractive

of The

study

simple

and

form.

scholastic

PREFACB

terms

have

not

been

discarded,
and
man

but

they have
into words edu

been which cation

carefullyexplained
will their convey real been
to

rendered

the

of While

average the
to

meaning. closely

scholastic

system
the
dress

has

adhered

throughout,
and
no

in which

it is clothed is hands class may necessary it is

to

is modern,

previous knowledge
Catholic
There the in whose

for

the

young

placed.
it is

is another text-book

whom prove and

hoped

that
a

present

useful.

Many

Protestant the each rival

at

student,
claims variance with for

perplexed
a

bewildered

by

of half
with
as

dozen

different often
-to to

systems,
also
at

the

rest, and

variance
the
on

itself truth

well, is inclined
in

give

up

search the

despair
of
on

and the the

fall back

Hamiltonian
or

doctrine other Such

Relativity of
non-existence
craves
can

Knowledge,
of truth
at

in

words,
a one

all.
some

often he

in

his

heart
one

after who of

leader
not

on

whom
the the fain

rely,some
inven

represents,
the

newly-fangled
traditional know is
as

tions of

individual, but
He would

authority
amid discord

centuries.

whether
same

Catholic and and who

philosophers
same

there

the among

the

contradiction

Protestants,
one

would

eagerly
in

drink his
own

in

the
name

teaching of
or

speaks, not

that

of
men

some

modern

theorizer, but

in the

name

of the

of

PREFACE.

genius, who
irom when

gave

themselves

to

the

study of Logic unhappy

with

the
the

days of Aristotle
old the

till the

period
con

learning ignorance

was

discarded of the

tempt
any

by

Reformers.
offers

To

such

inquirerthis

text-book
on

the

ordinary
and
set
as

Catholic forth

teaching grounded
St. Thomas
as
ever

Aristotle
which
centre

by

of in

Aquin,
every

flourishes of

vigorously
Catholic from
the

higher

education. doctrines without

it has the

If

there

is

any in

departure
pages,

of St. Thomas the

been

these

it is there

knowledge
to

of

their

writer,
in

whose the

object

follow
Doctor.

throughout

footsteps of
There

Angelic

is another
a

class to whom

such

text-book the
Con

as

this will be
can

real

boon,

to

whose

existence

writer
verts to

from testify

personal experience.
in the

the Catholic
and

Church, trained

English
drunk

Colleges
in
a

Universities, have
of

unconsciously
true,
often the
and
some

number

principles,some
and
are

false,
a

from

their
to

earliest years, discern the true

not

little

puzzled
in their
or

from

false.

Perhaps

early days

Hamilton
to

Jevons, Mansel
the orthodox
a

Veitch, had
and

represented
and
at

them
and

school,

Mill and

Spencer
same

Hegel
more

more

consistent

the

time

sceptical

system.
fain know

On how

submission far these

to

the Church,

they

would

rival claimants

possess

any

PREPACK.

fragments, large or they

each and

small, of solid truth,

away has
to

and

where In

all wander
this has
to

into been write

error.

the

following pages
and the been made Author useful

need

kept
what

in

view,
would when

sought
himself

have
he

twenty

years
to

ago,
master

unsuccessful the

endeavours

by

private study
from

principlesof
Latin

Otholic

philosophy

inscrutable
Last

text-books. remember the

of old

all

we

must

that
limits of

in

these

days

the

ideas

respecting
not
a

feminine Tin?; and train the many

education is not
the

have

been
to
more

little modified. the

place
of
a

discuss

advantages
intellectual
to

disadvantages ing
for
women.

enlarged
is

It is
a

enough

say
is
was

that in
common

change
respects

which

being

introduced
of what
an

only

re-assertion times. Truth trained

a

enough
to

in Catholic
cause

It is

undoubted of

gain

the

of be such may

that
to

women

cultivated

tastes

should have
as

think

correctly, and principles of

In the Convent

should

knowledge
them

of the

Logic
schools education United

help

thereto.
institutions way, of

and is

other

Catholic

higher
the im is

steadilymaking
and in the

especiallyin Logic
is
an

States,
element
even

study
The

portant
one

it.

present put
well into

volume the

which,
the

if it is not

hands for the

of

younger

students,

is

suited

PREFACE.

Teacher's

use

in

the

instruction

of

her

Catholic

pupils,
may

as

well

as

for

those

whose

general
the

training
and
a

give
to

them

an

interest

in

subject

desire

investigate
word
to

it

for

themselves.

One

those

who

may

desire

to

know

the

best

order

in

which

to

study

the

various

parts

of

Catholic

Philosophy.
has
not

Although
been

this

Text-book

of

Logic
of

the

first

to

appear

in

order

time,
in

it

is

the

one

which

naturally
the
Student

comes

first

order

of

thought,
from

and

is

recommended

to

pass

it

to

the

Text-book

of

First

Principles,

and

so

on

to

Ethics,
difficult

Natural

Theology, important

Psychology,
subject
of

and

the

though

General

Metaphysics*

CONTENTS.

INTRODUCTION.
PAGE

CHAPTER

I.
"

THE
THE

PROVINCE
DEFINITION

OF

LOGIC
.

II."

OF

LOGIC
.
.

15

111."
"

THE

FOUNDATIONS

OF

LOGIC
.
.

.29

I. II.

The The

Principle Principle
FOUNDATIONS

of of

Contradiction
.
.

33

Identity
. .

.42

IV.
"

THE

OF

LOGIC

(continued)
.

50

V.
"

THE

FOUNDATIONS

OF

LOGIC

(continued)
.

"

71
72 79

III. IV.

The The

Principle Principle

of

Causation
. .

of

Excluded

Middle
. .

VI.
"

THE

THREE

OPERATIONS

OF

THOUGHT
.

92

PART

I."

OF

SIMPLE CONCEPTION.

APPREHENSION

OR

SIMPLE

APPREHENSION
. . . "

97

VII.

"SIMPLE

APPREHENSION
ERRORS

(continued).
IT
...

MODERN

RESPECTING

121

VIII.
"

THE

DOCTRINE

OF

UNIVERSALS
. .

140

IX.
"

THE

HEADS

OF

PREDICAIU.ES
. .
.

163
193
225

X.

"

DEFINITION
.
.

XI.
"

DIVISION
.

xviil

CONTENTS.

PART

II.-OF

JUDGMENT
....

OR

ASSENT.
PAGB

CHAPTER

"

JUDGMENT
Divisions of

2.45
250
AND

Judgment
THEIR

....

II." PROPOSITIONS,
Divisions III. IMPORT
OF

NATURE

DIVISIONS

261 266

of

Propositions
PROPOSITIONS.
.....

....

VARIOUS

"

KINDS

OF

PROPOSITIONS

283

"

IV.

"

THE

OPPOSITION
.

AND

CONVERSION

OF

PRO 293

POSITIONS

PART

III.-

OF

REASONING

OR

ARGUMENT.

CHAPTER

I. II.

"

REASONING THE Canons Dictum General

SYLLOGISM

.....

305.
ITS

"

"

AND

LAWS
.

313

of the

Syllogism
et

315

de omni Rules

nullo
.

.316
.

of the
OF THE

Syllogism
SYLLOGISM.
.

316
324

III.

"

THE Rules Rules

FIGURES

REDUCTION
.
.

of the First of the of the of the Second Third Fourth

Figure Figure
Figure

352 333 334. 335 339

Rules
Rules

Figure
.....

Reduction IV.
VARIOUS
KINDS OF

"

"

SYLLOGISMS

348
359

Other
V.
"

Variations INDUCTION
INDUCTION

of the

Syllogism
.

"

FORMAL MATERIAL

364

"

VI.

"

....

376
. .
'

Method Method Method

of Agreement of Difference of Concomitant of Residues

389
390

....

Variations
.

393

Method

395

CONTENTS.

PAGE

CHAPTER

VII.
"

EXAMPLE

AND

ANALOGY
.
.

402,

Example
.....

402.

Analogy
.
.

407

VIII."
,,

THE

MATTER

OF

THE

SYLLOGISM
.

412
.

I.

Demonstrative

Syllogisms
.

419
. .

II.

Probable

Syllogisms
....

424

IX.
"

FALLACIES
. . .

432

"

I.

Fallacies
Fallacies

of

Language
.

434
.

II.

outside

Language
.

445

X..
"

METHOD

AND

ITS

LAWS
.

461
,
.

"

APPENDIX.

THE

SCHOLASTIC

METHOD
.....

475,

THE

PROVINCE

OF

LOGIC.

of argument the
act

; else

the

of

judgment
end

thought unwarrantable, the

process
at to

of

is

faulty,
oi

chain

argument
The

incorrect.

ultimate

aimed

in the

study
of

of

is to train the
It is not add
us

human
a

mind
man

exactness

Logic thought.

to make

to the
to

stock

of human

ready in argument, nor to knowledge, but to teach

in
a

think aimed
number

correctly. As
at

liberal

education
student

the
a

end
vast

is not

of for

impart to the accumulated facts,but to

to

stimulate

the

desire
him him

acquiring
the
a

information of
use

for himself, to
so,

furnish enable when

with
to

means

doing
of the

and

to

make

good

information the
a

acquired, so the ultimate objectof of Logic is not so much with to supply us of thought, as analysis of our processes
their correct

study
ensure

detailed

to

performance. This is the end it has in of Thought view the which in laying down Laws in analyzing the various its foundation, and are operationswhich fall within its province. This it in pointing out the mani aims at still more directly fold dangers to which thinking is exposed, and the the thinker is most liable to be fallacies by which the deceived. It seeks to arm logical student be able to detect that he may at a so cap-a-pie, incorrect unwarranted or judgment glance the assumption. It gives him the clue to the carefully and its concealed enables him to expose fallacy, the inference is faulty, or weakness, to show where in an used where the terms are ambiguous sense, or
where
statements
are are

put forward
from

as

identical when

they

different really

each

other.

MEANING

OF

THE

WORD.

But

what

is

Logic

Before

we

consider of the

this
as

question,we will look at the origin useful guide to its true meaning. an from the Greek Logic is derived
has used the in double classic word

word,

Logos, thought.

which It is the

meaning
authors in

of

word

and

indiscriminately
the

for

internal word

present

mind, and

the

external

by the lips. It has, therefore, no exact equivalent in English, although in theologicallan

uttered word in is the sometimes intellect such word used without is for that which is

guage hidden

finding

external

expression.1 But ordinary English language.

The double
to

exceptional,and in form of spoken implies some

usage the Greek of the word

use

of

sponds Logic.

the

double is

nature

Logos corre subject-matterof

primarily the internal thought, and secondarily the external expression of the with thought, so Logic is primarily concerned thought, secondarily with language, as expressing connection between correct thought. The thought and correct language is so intimate, that any branch of knowledge which(treats of the one to some must
As

Logos

extent

include with

the

other.

Logic, therefore, as
is

being
to

concerned also with

thought,

necessarily concerned
we see

Grammar.
1

language. Here Both Logic and

Word

its relation have

Person
in the
was

Grammar
Second hidden

to
of

do
the

Thus

The

is used Eternal

Blessed

Trinity,the
Eternal

the express Wisdom of God,

to

Intellect
made

of

the

Father
also the

before

all

ages

("The
with of

Word Divine the Lord

Flesh
to

"),and
mind

interior voice

speaking
word

authority
came

the

of

the

prophets (" The

to

Jonas," "c.).

THE

PROVINCE

OF

LOGIC.

thought and language, but Logic has to do with and with thought primarily and essentially, and only so far as it affects language secondarily, the other on hand, Grammar, thought, whereas of and treats of language primarily and essentially, far as and is necessary so thought only secondarily, of language. for the due treatment of knowledge concerned Logic then is a branch But sufficient this is not for our with Thought. What do we Definition. mean by Thought ? Has Logic to do with all our thoughts ? Does it include an investigation into the origin of Thought, the subject-matterof Thought, the various mental pro which connected with Thought ? Does it are cesses of Thought in general,or is it limited to some treat specialprovince or department of Thought ? In order to have accurate an knowledge of the first of all have must an province of Logic, we accurate knowledge of Thought. Thought is used
with
in two
I.

different

senses.

It is sometimes every

used

to

include

every

mental

process,

belong to the life. from intellectual)

Australia he
in is my is in my

faculties which activityof those sphere of intelligent (as distinguished

Thus I say

that my this
his I

friend in
mean

and thoughts, memory,

by
and

that dwells
to

present

in my

image
is said

imaginative faculty. A we thinking of its dinner, when

in the school-room fidgetty day meal approaches, and vague,
as we

child
see

be and

it restless

the time
mean

of its mid
a

thereby that
of
the
to

half-conscious
a

recollection

expected
its

food, and

desire to

partake

of

it,is present

LOGIC

IN

ITS

RELATION

TO

THOUGH'!.

mind. The

In this

sense

animals the
rat

may

be

said

to

think.
a

dog

thinks

of

when
corner

his of

master

makes
room

scratching
thinks he
sees

noise

in

the
some

the

; he

of the the

pain of
the

recent

castigation when meaning

of of the memory

word,
and

whip. belongs to

Thinking, in
material
as

this

faculties

imagination,as
2.

well

to the

immaterial

faculty
and

of intellect.1

Thought
sense

is of

also the

used

in

the of of
our

narrower

stricter faculties

exercise

intellectual immaterial of
our

properly so called, facultywhich brings within the ledge things above and beyond
nizes
and

that

range
sense,

know
recog

which

the

is suprasensible, things sensible that which the external contemplates under appearance It is the recognition in underlying nature. in of that the inner and which makes them
to

things around they are, of

of the which
or

be the

what shell

external

hidden under reality material object of sense, is termed the the

of that
essence,

in scholastic

language
it hoc ?
answers

is

because quiddity, this ? Quid est

common

question,2 What
is the

Thought
is the

grasping
of

ol

that

nature

which binds

foundation

all

classification,and

together existing things

it is true
that in the

When

thought

is used is
a

in this

sense,

case

beings there necessarilyaccompanies

the
to

of rational

real intellectual
act
are

every
we

of their

apprehension, since imagination. But

we

this it is

sensitive such
acts
3

act

of which

acts

the
men

word
and is

think, since
of the
lower

speaking when we employ it

animals.

use

in reference
same sense

in the

of

the

of

Quidditas
of

the

somewhat

barbarous

but

very The

expressive
essence

equivalentof the
or

Aristotelian

phrase, TO
in its

ri

%v flvai.
to

quiddity

thing consists

corresponding

tbe

pattern

THE

PROVINCE

OF

LOGIC.

into what
is

we

call classes,or

kinds, or

species.
own

It

apprehension of things immaterial and of things material spiritual, only after its
the immaterial
But fashion.
more

and

it is

than
the

this.

It also

includes

those

processes the ideas and

by

which

intellect compares for itself from

on

together objects
or

which around

it has
us,

framed pronounces

about
or

their agreement
be

disagreement, declares incompatible,identical or

decisions

them

to

compatible
each

different
at to

from

other. side

The

thus them

arrived passes

it

places

side, and
deducible

from from
and

further these

them, comparing
thus

by propositions together in

and constructing arguments chains of argument with of which the an activity of Thought. In only limit is the finite character other words, Thought apprehends, judges, reasons,

their

turn,

not

about

individual

objects,apprehended

directly

and

sensible immediately as individuals, not about but things in their capacity of objects of sense, the
inner sensible
nature
or

about whether

which

underlies

all

things,
or

suprasensible,
intellect alone
can

material grasp

and spiritual, make

which

and

its
Animals

own.

therefore

higher sense. things sensible

this

and

incapable of Thought Their knowledge is limited that which material, and

are

in
to

is

and matter. dependent on sense essentially have no capacity for apprehending the inner
after what tJycu
=

They
nature

which
was

it

was

fashioned.
to

Hence

ri
?

^v-what
And

is its nature?
rb ri

it intended

be
was

by

its Creator

therefore

fa

the

being

what

it

intended

to be

by

its Creator.

DIFFERENT

MEANINGS

OF

fPIOUGHT.

of

things. Animals

can

form

sort

of

judgment,

it is

true, about of sensible

from such

counterfeits

things of sense, and act in consequence impressions,as if they drew a conclusion judgments, in a way that often strangely intellectual but they never activity, get
region
of sense, admit
on

beyond
ties
on

the

and of

exercise

their

facul
on

objects

which

being painted

the the

Imagination,
But is

not

those

which

belong
all that

to

specialprovince Logic
with
are or

of

Intellect. with
concerns

concerned processes, the

Thought?
materials 'about ?

the

for instance, intellect

by

which think

supplied to
the

for it to

of Thought phenomena that observation and experience reveal to us ? Is it with the 'concerned reliance be to our placed on thoughts, and their correspondence with the things which think ? into about Does we an investigation the various faculties of the
to

with

various

mind each
we

that

think, and
for

of their the
scope

mutual of

relation

other, lie within

contend domain
on

Logic
careful

While

all

reasonable
we

in defining liberty be
not to

the

of Logic,
kindred

must

encroach

sciences.

Logic thinking
the its lower science

is not

concerned This

with

an

faculties. of

belongs
To the

to

analysis of our Psychology, or

well
as

of life,

intellectual

life, as

oi

manifestations.

Psychology,
various that

moreover,

belongs the thought, of

observation. of the

study
the To

of

phenomena
we

of

facts

of intellect

Psychology belongs
previous
to to

the

gain by analysis by
To which

processes
are

Thought,
Intellect.

materials

furnished

the

Psy-

THE

PROVINCE

OF

LOGIC.

chology belongs
distinction tive
between

the
the the

determination sensitive and

of the

the

exact

non-sensi mutual

faculties
on a

of

mind,
amount

and

of their

dependence
sciences have may with

each certain
in

other, and
of

though
common

the

two

ground,
is
con

yet

we

say

general that operations of

is concerned

Psychology
mind

cerned
sense,

all the

in its widest

only with those which contribute to correct thinking. is Logic concerned with the objects about Nor which we think, except in so far as they are repre in the thinking mind. sented Regarded in them the domain of Metaphysics, selves they fall under of things, which and investigatesthe inner nature in themselves The as they are. regards them the of Metaphysics determines of science nature forms of being, various of essence and substance, of of goodness, unity, truth. and and It cause effect,
while

Logic

treats

of

that

which
it in

lies its
treats

outside

the

mind,

and

contemplates
on

objective reality. Logic,

of that which
so

the

other

hand,

is within far
as

the mind
a

only, and
is it within

contemplates
the
be

it in

it is

part of the intellectual furniture.

But

on

the

reliance

to

province placed on
as

their internal

trustworthiness

Logic to decide our thoughts, or representations of the

of

which think? Here we objects about the come on we an important distinction between two parts of Logic. Formal i. Logic has a limited, though a most is confined to important province. Its jurisdiction those thoughts which already exist within the mind

io

THE

PROVINCE

OF

LOGIC.

of the
acts

consequent

of folly

the part of critic and

scepticism. It of truth, and investigator

universal the limits of the that it
to

its

investigationscarry
defend it is this
process

it outside

thinkingprocess
may

properlyso
from

called,in order

against
without.
we

the

dangers

which

exposed
with
the

In the present

volume

shall confine

ourselves,

rigourof too close an exactitude, to Formal Logic. Material Logic is rather a part of Fundamental Philosophy, and would lead us too far shall find it necessary afield. Yet to speak of we certain processes which speaking lie outside strictly Formal that has of the confusion Logic on account introduced been by the speculations of various
though
not

modern

authors, who
to

make

it necessary

for

us

from
own

time
proper and

time

to

make in

excursions
to

outside

our

province
beat
our

order

keep

its limits

intact,

they seek to bring confusion into the realm of Logic Pure. Formal the allyand the most Logic is moreover useful allyof Material Logic. Although it takes its materials for granted, yet indirectly it detects error
opponents
back

when

admitted

from
and any
our error

without.

For

as

we

derive

our

thoughts
sources,

judgments from countless different is sure to existingin the mind

or

find

itself

sooner

later

at

variance there.

with

some

truth which
detects

is

already settled
be driven
as

Formal

Logic
the be

the
must

inconsistencyand
forth.
as

declares
There

that
cannot

intruder

harmony
and

in the

soul

long

error

remains

there;

Formal
indeed

leaves

It Logic detects the jarring note. to Applied Logic the task of watching

MEANING

Of

FORMAL

LOGIC.

ii

at

the

gate and
which
a

demanding

the

passport
into
over

of

propo

sitions

demand

admission

the

mind, but

it exercises
within.

surveillance vigilant

those
a

Besides

this, it has
in the from
are

at

its service

already body of
truths
so

efficient auxiliaries which

as

shape
without

of necessary
at

do

not

come

all of

(except
their the of

far

external
are

things
citizens
are

the
are

occasion born

birth),
Formal

but

the

who the

within

thinking

mind.

They
and
as

ready

instruments

unless be driven out never they can absolute useful in most anarchy prevails,they are is not furnished thrusting forth the stranger who with a passport, however plausible and fairspoken he few errors be. There in truth, very (and are, may

Logic,

those Formal

are

errors

of

fact and

not

of the

which principle)
means

ting and
But is that

Logic does not expellingfrom

what is the of

supply
the mind of

of

detec

meaning

Formal with

Logic
the

It

part
to

Logic

which all

deals

forms

according
"with the and of

which which

laws

thought proceeds regulatethought, the universal

correct must correct.

rules which irrefragable thinking, if it is to be its materials into the

use.

govern

every

act

Formal and

Logic
trans-

supposes formed
own

already
these

received

intellectual

pabulum
materials

suitable the

for its

In

using

intellect,

from certain which

t-he

has necessity of its rational nature, fixed and under unchangeable conditions It
an

it thinks. from

is from

conditions,
method
the of

analysis of these investigationof its normal

an

procedure
are

that

the

laws

which

govern

intellect

ascertained,and

it is the

business

of

il

THE

PROVINCE

OF

LOGIC.

Formal

Logic
on

to enunciate

these laws, to enforce

and
to

their of

observance

every

thinker

allow

no

sort

deviation,even
enactments.

by
It

and

immutable
on

singlehair's-breadth from their has to proclaim these laws eternal God as Himself, and to pronounce
a

its anathema any From

all who under any

declare

that

they

admit

of

exception
the
was

circumstances
end

whatever. before in any

or

beginning to
and

the

of time, nay
no

Time

after Time
which
are

shall be God
has

more,

conceivable

world laws

created and

could

create, these
and very all God

unchangeable
interfere with
For

inviolable,
in their of the

Himself

cannot

them

smallest
Truth

detail.
are

they are
God

the foundation founded could

and upon
not
man

and

themselves

nature

of the God

of Truth.
to

violate
cannot

them

without
them he

ceasing
without
in

be

God,

violate which
likeness

violatingthat
virtue

rational creation

nature

possesses

of his

in the

of God.

Logic, therefore, in using it, is concerned

But laws
not

the
with laws

sense

in Laws

which

we

are

the
which

of Thought*
be termed

with

all the

may

thought. For the expression admits of two different meanings. A Law of Thought may be a law which regulates the relation of thought to the out the correspondence side world, and of the ensures thought
would after
a

of

to
a

be

objects thought of. material Law of Thought.

amount

the

Such
For

law

instance,
and the

certain
feel

of careful

observation

research, I

in laying down myself justified

proposition:All tortoises are slow in and I apply to the logician to know

their movements, whether I

am

THE

LAWS

OF

THOUGHT.

I?

conforming
process law about

to

the has

laws led
me

of correct
to
a

thinking
has
to

in the The decide

which
which and

this conclusion. which

I ask the

is

law

the amount tion which

nature

of the in

me justifies

investiga uniting together in one

and the idea of slow accep

internal

judgment
ness

the

idea

of tortoise
It is
a

of

movement.

law of

regulating the
It be arrived
at

tance

of

the

materials

thought.
ideas.

involves

external
mere

research, and
of the Formal
a

cannot two

by

a a

comparison
law, and
law it. It is not
a

It is therefore
cannot

material
upon

Logic

pronounce

law

of may

Thought
be known outside. whether

itself as

It is not of any Material the

which
to to

reference

things

Thought. independently It belongs to

fulfilled

Logic

pronounce

I have

conditions

assertion
But

tion,All
whether

certitude in the requisiteto ensure of the propositionin question. if I submit the to logician the proposi immaterial are beings,and ask him spirits safe in asserting it,he as I am formal a
can answer me

logician by
no

at

once.

The
at

process

which outside

that

proposition

is

arrived

needs

investigation.It involves nothing more than idea of a comparison of the thought or the thought or and idea of immaterial spirit being. Spiritimplies immaterial, and the process of com the two in my to combine parison which leads me judgment is a process of Formal so Logic strictly The called. law which regulates the process is a is entirely formal, not a material law, a law which and independent of external observation research,
a

law

which

follows

from

the

nature

of

Thought

as

Thought.

I4

THE

PROVINCE

OF

LOGIC.

Hence

Logic
with

is concerned
the Laws
concern

with of

the

Formal
as

Laws

of Thought,
with
the laws

Thought

Thought,
in and

which

Thought

alone,

by

itself.
Even

when
wide. It It
our

thus

restricted
Its
a

the extends

field

of
over

Logic
all whenever
our

is

sufficiently
thoughts.
we

sway
to

has

word

say
on

to

us

think. which

sits

on

its tribunal

every any

occasion intellectual

on

intellect
Even

performs though
with into the
the

operation
disclaim materials with with
it is the

whatever.
any

Formal introduction

Logic
of
or
or

interference
outside

from faculties
nature to

thinking
those

mind,

which the that

a

supply
mind
we

materials,

the
true

of
say

itself which
cannot
over

thinks, still
a

think

thought
is

without
we

Logic
the

having study
it work
a

control of

it.

This

why

begin
for

Philosophy
its
counts
our

with

Formal
on our

Logic,
mind's

unless

stamp
all in

approval
for

work,
can

that

nothing.
process, with

If
if

Logic
it
can

show
out

flaw
a

thinking

point
a

single
in which

idea

inconsistent and

itself,or
are

judgment
or

subject
at

predicate
with

incompatible, premisses
whole it has
or

conclusion does
to not

variance

the the

which
has

follow
aside
as

from

them,

argument
conformed

be

put

valueless,
inflexible

until law*

to

the

ruthless

and

of Formal

Logic.

CHAPTER

II.

THE

DEFINITION

OF

LOGIC.

Summary

of

preceding
of
Art The
"

Chapter
and

Is
"

Logic
Science
"

an

Art

or

Science,

"Distinction
Art

Science
Laws with of
Is
"

learned immutable

by

Stud"
Art
"

by
"

practice
Science

of

Science what
to

mutable
with

concerned

already Logic
"

exists,

Art

production

"

Application
an

this the

Logic
of

primarily specula
both

Science,
or

secondarily practical
and
?
"

Art

Science

Logic
"

tive

Distinctions

between Various

them Definitions

Logic
of

speculative (i)
Mill,

practical Whately,
Logicians

"

Logic, (4) J. Logic.

S.

Archbishop (5)
Arabian

(2) Arnaulcl,
"

(3)
of the

Port Name

Royal,
of

History

BEFORE
we

we

proceed
up

with work

our

Definition hitherto. aims with is

of

Logic,
The all-

must

sum

the
at

done

important
of which

end

which is

Logic
concerned mental and
none

exactness

Thought.
we mean

Logic
not

Thought,
but

by
the

every

process,

operations operations
of book with the which

of fall

intellect under three the

other. the

These

heads,
three

consideration of
not
a

furnishes

divisions is

text

on

Logic.

Logic,
of
our

however,

concerned
or

an

analysis
processes
nor

thinking
which

faculties,

with

mental

necessarily
objects
which is

accompany about which

Thought,
we

with

the

external that

think,

but

only

with

immediately

16

THE

DEFINITION

OF

LOGIC.

necessary

to

correct

thinking.
the

It therefore the Human

correctness

has

to

deal, (i) with

lect which

those

operations of
from

Intel
of the

take

for granted

materials

supplied

without,

and

regulate the

development of those materials (Formal is en Logic) ; (2) with those operations by which of the materials sured the correctness supplied,and disposaland
their which

correspondence they represent

occupy called
to

with

the

external

realities We
are

(Material Logic).
with Formal the
it defines

going to
is
or so

ourselves

Logic,
necessary
as

which

because

forms
con

laws

which

all correct

Thought
laws
but

such

forms
in

not itself,

with
to

the

regulating Thought
with those

its relation which The

extends

things outside,
internal of

only

regulate its
scope
over

operations in
under these

them

selves.

Logic, even
the

restric

tions,
We
so

whole

province
Definition

of Human

Thought.
have
as now

arrived it is
a

at

the

of

Logic

far

this,that

branch

deals with
seen,

the Formal
that

Laws

moreover,

it has fixed

knowledge which of Thought. WTe have practicalend at which

of
immutable laws
to

it aims, which

that

is, has

and

conform, that it is learned thinking must of thought. We by a careful study of our processes in a positionto discuss the much are now disputed question whether Logic is an Art or a Science, or
both In
we torily, an

all

Art order

and
to

Science
answer

this
a

question
ol

satisfac

must

consider
as

few

the

distinctions from the

generallyregarded
sciences.

separating the

arts

THE

DEFINITION

OF

LOGIC.

vary

with

the character
a

of

nation.

which
have and

held

Roman
now

audience in

eloquence spell-bound would

of men,

The

littleeffect would
be

moving

the minds

spite of the expression.

pronounced artificial and tedious, in of beauty of language and brilliancy

To other
:

the

practical Spartan
of Greece
was

the

florid

eloquence of
in the
extreme

tribes

wearisome
was :

the

rule of Spartan

rhetoric

all things. The of dyeing cloth art Brevity above of annealingiron, is always ready to adapt itself or discoveries. The to new 'ndefinitely styleof paintthe same remains for long. But a science never i""

admits
laws the

of

no

such

variations.
are

The
the
same

fundamental
now as

change introduced into its practical that has been working of society. Geometry by the changed conditions in every age and every country, is not only the same and but is unchangeable wherever quantity space
are

political economy days of King Solomon,

of

in

however

great the

found.
3. Hence
a science

first

to principles

the
It

proceeds special and

takes

downwards individual

from

appli

cations
Even

of them. the inductive

as a

observation
not

means

ready made. sciences use experiment and of discoveringexisting laws,

them for themselves.
But
an

its laws

of
has

manufacturing
in

art

its libertyto make general unbounded laws, so long as it violates no existinglaw of own of painting although it must The art nature.
t

conform tive and

to

certain

extent

colour, has

the
and

of perspec greatest possible freedom

to

the

laws

jn all other

respects

can

encroach

evea

on

DISTINCTION

OF

ART

AND

SCIENCE.

ig

Anything is lawful reallypleasing picture, even

these.
some

which

will

produce

though

it may hitherto the still. the

violate held

conventional

sacred. mechanical 4. But

propriety and rules Poetry is equally free, and

arts
we

purely
central
Aristotle

have have

more

freedom

not

yet reached
and them
to

distinction
more

between
once us

Art compares

Science. with various

than

each

other,
of with

and

gives
which

the

key

their

points

difference. that of

Science, he
exists does be
as

tells us,
Art

is concerned with the

already.
not
as

production
The end

that

which may

yet exist.1
it is
at
never

of

Science
or

but practical,
as

productive,
passes

rather,
an

soon

it aims

production, it
Science the student what

into is
are are

art.

For

instance, the
it teaches of
to

of Medicine
what
means are

practical: essentially
the
most

conditions serviceable the

perfect health,
preserve

it, what
or

the
or

effects upon what alkali, this

or

human
nature

body
and But

of this what
are

that the
art

acid

is the

causes

of

that

disease.

it is not

an

until the view

non

with the practicalscience is put into practice, definite results hitherto of producing certain

existent, of producing
was

strength
before

where there of of

before
was

there

weakness, health
passes
out

where of the

disease.
Science It
new

It then of

character the
to

the

Medicine

and

becomes

Art

Healing.
for its is

acquires new
role
as an

characteristics
Art.

qualifyit
element
more

The

scientific becomes
"pl

well-nigh
and
19,

forgotten, experience

important,
Post. Anal

T" t"f, Sf irfpl Tt'x"/7j

ytvtffiv.

IV.

1008.

(Edit. BeroliiU

to

THE

DEFINITION

OF

LOGIC.

he who

practisesit adapts his treatment the results of his own experience than
conceived

rather
to

to

*he

pre He
to

theories
frame

of

Schools

of

Medicine. throws

begins to
the winds

theories

for himself, and

principlesif he finds that by at setting them nought the health of his patients is advantaged. of Healing, productive ol Art The health, acquired by practice, mounting up from facts to principles founded these facts, caring on little for theoretical the place of laws, has taken
the Science
as

received

of Medicine

which

accepts

health

and

disease

already existing,is acquired by study, facts to characteristics as investigatestheir various downwards be accounted from for, argues general follows fixed and and to individual cases principles
established rules.
art

Hence,
as

is science

Aristotle elsewhere

employed in production,1 or, habit of defines it,a productive

reason.2

wind, acting in conjunctionwith

case

In

every
art
:

the makes production that painting,sculpture,rhetoric, music, poetry, are

it is

the

aT,

productive, and
or

it is in virtue that

of their

they have a claim is not granted to science. law, which To apply this to Logic. We may
creative
power

productive to overleap

begin with this central test, since all the rest are dependent the question of productiveness. Is Logic upon productive? That it is practicalno one can doubt ; the study of it is of the greatest value in furthering
correctness

of

thought.

But

what
j

does
ttdp
vi. 3,
X.

it

produce

7TO|"JTIK7. fJL"ra

(Eth. \Ayov vvii\rttci].

4.)

SCIENCE
T.yu.
___^" "

AND
" " "

ART
"

OF
" " " " "

LOGIC.
" " " "
"

at
^" " _

"

_"

bin

CD

the ques We it as an art ? answer qualify may The science of tion by the parallel of medicine. deals with medicine things as they are, studies of sound the laws health, and them, lays down describes the deals

symptoms
with the
means

of

disease.

The

art

of
and

healing
searches

by every experience the means

In the
same

production of health, of inquiry to find

by

way

the

existing Laws
of correct

conditions

restoring it. the Science of Logic deals with the of Thought, clearly defines thinking and the characteristics
in the

of

of correct
of human
to

But Thought. nature, Logic incorrect where

we

present
needed
as

condition medicine truth and have

is also and and have

heal

thought
error

produce
Art

consistency
crept
as

inconsistency
an

in.

Hence The

must

of

Logic

well.

science, of
But this is

of logician in his study is a man but not of productivescience. practical, not enough if he is to fight the battle
must

of Truth.

He

descend

into

the
of the

arena

and He

grapple with
must restore

the

prevalent fallacies
soundness

day.

intellectual the

where
; he must

disease

had

affected where

of thought faculty
had have

produce

health

sickness he
must

vitiated
at

the the

intellectual

processes;
answer

hand

appropriate
watch

for the for the mental the

plausible objection; he must opportunity of providing a suitable

to

the

remedy
of

poison
vision.

which All

has this

weakened needs

the

keenness
"

experience
and
on on

it needs
retort.

power

of

ready
not

argument

quick
power

Success

depends

merely
also

the the

soundness

of

but underlying principles,

of rapid

THE

DEFINITION

OF

LOGIC.

and

suitable

production.
than had Fie

Such

man

is of

an

expert in
The pro skilful
matter

the Art
science ductive

rather he
art.

in the

Science has

Logic.
the
a

acquired
derives

passed into
success

his

from

application of Logica under discussion, but

in the

utens

to

the

special

background
doc ens.1

implies necessarily thorough acquaintance with

Art
as

his

skill

Logica

There

is,then,

an

well

as

Science

of

Logic. But the Art is a-n appendage to the Science, and entirely secondary. The Science of Logic would in point of fact, always thought still exist if men, of Logic would in this case correctly ; but the Art raison d'etre. If natural Logic always had have no the or over thoughts of men, artificial mastery remain indeed as a body of acquiredLogic would thinking (and there systematized rules for correct science),but not as an art pro fore,as a practical from of recovery incorrect thinking. viding means fact that natural is The Logic is violable by man the reason why acquired Logic partakes of the
nature
1

of

an

art.2
is the

thinking, the statement theory of correct of the laws which always and everywhere are binding on the mental of all rational beings. Logica utens is the application of processes of Logic to this or that subject-matter ; it is the the general laws specialdepartment employment of Logical laws in some practical Logica
docens

of

knowledge.
theories

various
reason.

Logica utens, for instance, will aid us in examining with right of religious belief,and their accordance
us

It will enable

to
even

detect

social which

and

and political,

brilliant

hypothesis
innate

too

underlying many scientific arguments, by the use of often takes the place of well-estab
the of that

fallacies

lished
a

principle.
or

Natural
nature

Logic
on

consists

body

of unwritten

law

which

imposes

all rational

beings, and

which

all correct

PRIMARILY

SCIENCE.

83

Hence definition dinate

Logic
there

is is
no

primarily a Science,
need
to

and

in

its

introduce
as an

its subor Formal

character

and

functions of the Formal

as

Art.

Logic
or

is the Science Laws the

Laws

of

Thought
Material

of the
is

of

Thought
of from

Thought.
Laws
nature

Logic
which

Science

those the

of Thought
of

arise not from

merely
the
nature

Thought
which

but itself,
we

of the

objects about

think. Material

and

Logic in general (including both Formal The Science oj as Logic) may be denned
The Science its which directs the
or

the Laws

of Thought, or
which

operations of
The order Science in
our

the intellect in is concerned

knowledge of Truth,
the observance

with

of dm

intellectual

One before
a we

other

operations. be briefly considered question must

our

dismiss
a

Definition

of ?

Logic.

Is

it

or speculative

Science practical what is the

Let
a

us

see

distinction

between

and We cannot a speculative practicalScience. decide this by the mere examination of the matters of which in which Logic treats, or of the manner it treats of them. Its character as speculative or practical depends on something extrinsic to itself. the end whither it directs those It depends on who Ihinking obeys.
without
at

It is born time

in

us,

and

we

cannot

run

counter

to

it

to our reason. running counter Artificial all those rules which or acquired Logic comprises are systematized in those who ttrawn up to ensure liable think correct to are thinking double Its is and to to act Incorrectly. object guard against error, to inaccuracy of thought where it already exists. All dis a remedy
same

the

its rules it adds goes

must,
to

of course,
goes

conform

to

the

laws

of

natural

Logic,
adds
to

but
and

it and the

beyond
to

form

the laws

medicine as beyond it, somewhat ordinary food of man, though it must of nvtrition and digestion.

always

con

THE

DEFINITION

OF

LOGIC.

devote is

themselves the
a

merely
is
a

study of it. contemplation of some

to

the

If this

end

truth, the

science is

one. speculative science, speculative us

Thus inasmuch

Natural
as

Theology
it aims God
at

teaching
His

certain

verities

respecting

and

perfections. If, however, the end whither a science tends is the contemplation of a truth with view to science. a action, it is then a practical Thus Political Philosophy is a practicalscience,
inasmuch
as

it inculcates

certain

truths

with

the

members as guiding the action of men of society. Speculative and practical sciences alike thei"- proper of things and inquire into the nature on ties,but the practical science beyond this goes inquiry,to apply the knowledge gained to human action. Psychology and Moral Science both discuss

object

of

the

obstacles

to

the

exercise

of the

freedom
such
are,

of t*

human
when

will ; but the

he

has

laid

as psychologist down what they

is satisfied whereas of
the

moralist
down Is

considers rules

them

with

the
action.

object

laying

certain

for human

or practicalas well ? Logic merely speculative, the other, nor Properly speaking it is neither one the it is introductory to all sciences, and because be it may But which foundation on they rest.1 the classed under speculativesciences inasmuch intellectual its object is to as analyze certain

also, in so far as operations,while it is practical definition the it has for its object, according to just given, the guidance of the intellect in the
1
"

Logica

non

est

proprie
la

scientia q. 57, art.

specuiativa
3, ad 3um.

seel

tantun*

reductive.

Cf. St. Thos.

2x,

THE

DEFINITION

OF

LOGIC.

and

explain it aright,it would

it introduces

as

the

art

of

still be

open

considerations
avoidance "c.

Logic, such as the preconceived notions Logic is the 3.

"

thoughts guiding our to the objection that altogether foreign to of hasty conclusions,

Science the

of the

human

understanding in Royal Logic).

This definition has
The
an

operationsof the (Port pursuit of Truth"

appendage understanding is
it, when
as

unnecessary

in
as

the much

last words. ruled

as

human when

by Logic
vvhen

it is in the still pursuing

possession
it
as

of Truth

it is

contemplates
when

Truth

it is still
no

already attained searching after it.

over our re as

much

Is when

Logic
we we

to
are are

exercise

sway truth

minds
well may
as

pondering over hunting after

in in

when

perhaps admit omit these last words, though it .he Definition if we still fails clearly off Logic from Psychology, to mark from exclude to or Logic ethical considerations foreign to its scope and purpose. Logic is the Science of the operations of the 4. subservient to the estima are understanding which
spe ?
We
"

Truth

tion of evidence" The

(J.S. Mill).

side extends objection that this on the one the other limits, and on Logic beyond its proper be urged against this definition limits it unduly, may
no

less than

against the
evidence
"

last mentioned. includes

the and be
to

The

"

esti

mation character whether with

of

weighing
the relied
upon,

of the

of their

the

witnesses

examination
and

evidence
has

is to

this Logic

nothing

do.

It

moreover

VARIOUS

DEFINITIONS

OF

LOGIC.

27

admits
on

into
source

the

domain external in

of

Logic
Mr.
to

no

truth

based "evi the from

error

any

but the
sense

experience, since
which Mill
uses

dence," word,
without. of the 5.

in

is something
It thus

presented
involves the

the

mind

fundamental

Empirical School. Logic is the

"

science

of

argumentation
Magnus,
It the tends At
as

(scitntiaargumentandi)"
This well
to
as

is the of

definition Arabian the

same

of

Albertus

certain of

logicians.

is liable defi
to

something
of the time

nition limit
same

objection as Archbishop Whately, in that it sphere of Logic to reasoning.

we

the

must

remember

that, after
enable
us

all, the
to

chief

function This

of

Logic

is to

argue

correctly.

is its

prominent characteristic, not

only in the popular conception of the science, but in its practical application to the furthering of Truth.
At all events this definition than
must must

be

classed

as

in

complete
A

rather words
on

incorrect. be added before

name
we

few

close

this The

chapter
word

the

history
name

of

the

Logic.
used of branch
or

soil. Trpay/jLareia)is not itself (\oyitcr)

as

by
the

Aristotle
The fact

the

of

separate

study.

of defining difficulty that its limits

cannot

its limits, be

rather

exactly defined,

he omission. for the But accounts sufficiently speaks of logical arguments, logical difficulties, logicaldemonstrations, and logicalproblems, much in the that
sense

in which is concerned

we

use

the

word

to

express
term

which
as

with
a

thought.
branch

The of

Logic,

the

name

of

separate

know-

*8

THE

DEFINITION

OP

LOGIC.

ledge,
of third
The

came

into and

use

among

the
in

immediate
works

followers of the

Aristotle,
century.
nearest

is

found

extant

approximation
Aristotle wider
It is Dialectic.

to

name

for
Plato

Logic
used

in the

Plato

and in

But

word

sense,

which the science from

included of the

meta

physics discussing
inner

as

well. with itself of

was

mind the other

("ia\eKTLicr)

SiaXeyo/jLat,)
on

nature

things.
Dialectic
to

Aristotle,
that branch

the of
takes

hand,
which the

restricted

Logic
for

deals

with from which

probable
which
number

matter,
it
starts

and

principles

certain

general
are

probabilities
willing
With
him
to

of basis of

disputants
their of into

all

accept
it
was

as

the

discussion. discussion the which

wider

the

art

(or
it of

science)

or

disputation, meaning
with
of

and

thence branch

passed knowledge

that

deals

probable

matter.

CHAPTER

III.

THE

FOUNDATIONS

OF

LOGIC.

Summary

Positive
"

and and

Negative
indirect
Three

proof"
All
"

Superiority proof
necessary
must to

of
rest

positive
on one

proof"
common

Direct

proof
conditions
I. To
"

principle Principles
the

this

principle

"

First
"

of

Logic.
of of
to

The

Principle
this of

of

Contradiction intellectual
Four
"

necessarily
suicide" conditions
guage,

first

all

deny

principle
Contradiction

Impugners
necessary

the this

principle principle,

(i)

Exactness
to
same

of

lan oi The

(2)
(4)

Identity Identity
of
it
"

of of

standard,
time
"

(3) Reference Being

of
and the

part
II.

object, Principle respecting theory

nseless.

non-Being. principle (i)

False
"

Identity
Sir

Nature
"

views
on

W.

Hamilton's

view,
;n

Founded

false
and1

of

conception,

(2)

Untrue

itself,

(3) Unnecessary

IN of the

our

last

chapter

we

decided

the
and

difficult after

questiot examminf;
Sciences that

the

Definition

of

Logic,
of
to

leading

characteristics
we came

Arts

and

respectively,
is that Its

the

conclusion

Logic
Art,
and

primarily
this fixed is and than the

Science
both of

and Formal

secondarily
and the of

an

true

Material

Logic.
of
a

immutable

laws,
as
a

necessity
becoming

study good
as

rather

practice
absence

means

logician,
an

of of
same

any all time

productive point
there
to

element

essential
At

part
the

it,

its
is
an

scientific
art

character.

oi

5o

THE

FOUNDATIONS

OF

LOGIC.

Logic which depends on practice and is far moie Yet Logic pliablein the laws on which it is based. therefore well exist without it. We might perfectly denned Logic as The Science of the Laws of Human Thought,
several stated Our various
cesses

compared this definition with others given by modern logicians, and for maintaining it. reasons our be into the investigation will therefore
and
we

laws
are we

or

forms
But

to

which

subject.
must

in

thinking pro building up our logical

our

structure

first of all look

sure

to

the

Founda

tions
which Laws

and all

make

of

the

First of which detailed

what

Principles on
the various

of

thinking Thought
we

rests, and
are

the and

expression.
is to
on

Whence

are

to

begin
and ? its

be

the

solid basis, unassailable

all else shall rest
secure

impregnable,
laws
or

which

Every science

has

primary

axioms.

If

reallythe science of all sciences,we must is the founda find in its First Principlesthat which tion, riot of Logic alone, but of all other sciences If Logic is to expound to us what whatever. correct thinking is,it is of the greatest possibleimportance should be able to place absolute confidence that we in Logic
is the axioms

from
over

which every every

it starts, since

dominion
ment
ever we

thought

we

they are to have think, every judg

draw. What

form,
the and

conclusion

we

be

subject-matter, out
earth about be which
we

of

all

things

in

heaven

think, those

first

must principles

accepted as supreme, able, universal,immutable, eternal.

Before
we

irrefrag

lay down

what

these

First

Principles

FOUNDATIONS

AND

FIRST

PRINCIPLES.

31

are,

there

are

one

or

two

important

points
shall

to

be

noticed.
1.

Without

anticipating what
may

wt

have

to

say
a

about

proof,we
method of

double

certain from positive directly,by by principlesrespecting it that it is so, or indirectly, showing the impossibilityof any other alternative. for instance, the I may proposition : The prove, either exterior angle of a triangle is greater than of the interior and opposite angles : either directly of or indirectly by a positive course argument, follows from the by showing the absurdity which supposition of its being equal to or less than either either of them. is better positive argument than negative. Positive or direct proof teaches us immediately^whatthings are : negative or indirect
2.

lay proof. showing

down We

the may

existence
prove
a

of

thing

It

is clear

that

argument
inference
moreover,

teaches from
not

us

what

they
are

are,

what

they

not.

only by an Positive proof,

what us only teaches things are, but gives us an insight into the reason why they are so. Negative proof in its final result never gets that something that was in beyond the conclusion dispute is reallytrue.
3.

Direct from

and
one

indirect and
a

proof
same

starts

in the

first

instance direct

the

proof
upon first
some

has and

secondary

principle. But principle, which

from
their

depends
common

is

immediately derived

it that

identical.

is so and principle, closely allied to philosophers regard them as virtually This secondary principle of direct or

32

THE

FOUNDATIONS

OF

LOGIC.

ostensive

proof
to

will

be

ponding
from
4.

the

nature

corres something positive, follows of the proof which

it.
The
common

principle on

which

direct

and

proof alike are based will be the ultimate principle underlying all other principles,and by of which be demonstrated. It is means they can the principle to which all be they must brought back and which on they depend for their validity. By
and

indirect

its supreme

should
all

If it they are established. all reasoning fail,all other principles, nay, truth, disappears from the mind.

virtue

5. Three
on principle

conditions
which be
no

are are

necessary
to

for
:

the

first

all else

depend

(1)

It must

such
one

that
can

it is evident

in itself so
it aside.
our
con

that

deny it, or
never

set

Without

this it could
all that

obtain
from

fidence, and
be unreliable. be

followed

it would

(2)

It must any
must

such

that

it does

not

depend
it. any

on

other be

principle going before absolute, not subject to

or

It
sort

qualification. be incapable of demonstration, (3) It must be a first principle it would otherwise not from certain other prin but a conclusion it would as going ciples which suppose
before 6. it. from be It is clear

of condition

what
our

we

have

said,our
to

first
There them

principle need
may be many and

not

only principle.
known
us

selves

primary laws not capable of

in

direct

demonstration.

34

THE

FOUNDATIONS

Oh

LOGIC.

at

the basis of every

universal
our

thought

we

think, the first and

Hence be
our

most

Ultimate,
exhibits
a

subject of Thought. Primary Principle will

relation of exist Relation

that which

the

primary
cannot

relation
to

without
even

related
two

it.

in the

Being. But such something to be thought requires

first

distinct
must

terms.

Hence

Relation
or

of

being
from
must

be But

to

something
that which

distinct

different

Being.

is different from

Being

be therefore our not-Being, and necessarily ultimate and enunciate the primary principle must relation is between Being and not-Being. What of exclusion this relation ? or con Obviously one time possess tradiction. Nothing can at the same Being and not-Being" Nequit idem simul esse et non
"
"

esse;

or,

in

the

words

of St. Thomas:
"
"

"

We

must

not

affirm

and

deny simultaneously

Non

est simul

et affirmare

negare.

On

this

Principle of
and

Contradiction
It enunciates

all

proof
the

is

based, direct
first

indirect. and

very in

Principle of Being,
order of Reason underlies any all in

the

It therefore every It is
act
a

precedes other possible statement. thinking. It is implied

every

therefore

in

of

Thought,

assertion

we

make.

He who refuses necessityof our reason. commits to acknowledge its universal supremacy, He thereby intellectual suicide. puts himself out side the class of rational beings. His statements have him truth and For no falsityare meaning. words. mere According to him the very opposite he If a thing of what be equallytrue. says may
can

be

true

and

false

at

the

same

tirre, to

what

THE

PRINCIPLE

OF

CONTRADICTION.

35

purpose

is it to in

make the
to

any

assertion ? Fact
error

respecting any
ceases ceases

single object
fact, truth
error.

universe be

to to

be be is

ceases are

truth,

We is false

all

right and
is false do
one

all wrong. is true. in the

What
Statement

true

and

what

and
one

counterstatement

not
man

least another

exclude
man

another.
assert

What with
as

denies

may such
not
a

thing
not

science.

equal truth, or rather there is no Truth at all. Logic is a science, yet The of Thought Laws universal, are
Virtue I is to be

yet
to

universal. followed.

followed, yet
not

not

be
a

exist, yet I do
is
no

exist.

There is

is

God,
the the

yet there
not

God.

Every
a can

statement

false and that than

false,a
of of which

lie yet not all this

lie. be

It is evident

outcome

chaos

scepticism

pure

scepticism,too,
If the Law
case,

destroys itself
can

nothing else and simple, a act. by its own

set

of all

Contradiction

be

aside

in

single

of possibility
ever.

all philosophy, all truth, all religion, thinking disappear for consequent

Yet, strange
themselves Law whole very the

to

say, not in

few

of

those

who

call the the the

Philosophers
human honour

modern
a

of Contradiction

from

days portion, or
Kant

banish from has

field,of
of

questionable
doctrine

knowledge. of having
or

first

initiated
exist
true

Antinomies,

contradictions

both ing side by side, but nevertheless in point of fact,albeit to our reason

of them

irreconcilable.
declare

Schellingand
that
to

Hegel
of Truth.

follow

in his steps, and has

no

the

Law

Contradiction Dean Mansel

application
us,

absolute

tells

in

his

IHE

FOUNDATIONS

OF

LOGIC.

Limits

of ReligiousThought,
of
W.
a

that

the
are

fundamental self-contra

conceptions dictory.Sir
on we

rational

Theology
assures

Hamilton
in
our

us,

in his Lectures the absolute

enume

Logic,
must

that

knowledge
Archdeacon

of

repudiate
antinomies

it.1

Farrar he Mr.
to be

rates

the

of St. Paul, which

to

declares
Herbert

to be

irreconcilable
declares

human and

reason.2

Spencer
untenable

Theism

Atheism
man.

equally

by

the

intellect of
far
to
as

Hegelian School go so with non-existence, and

dictions
are

to

Many of the existence identify

that all contra of
one

declare

but

partial expressions
What all Truth, to
all make
a

all-

embracing
the

Truth.3 of

else is this but

existence

all
mere

deny philosophy
to

impossible,to manipulation
Truth
a mere

render of

argument
fruitless

childish

unrealities, all investigation of

search after the
?
we

futile and

Philosopher'sstone
At

the

same

time

must

carefully guard

our

It may Principleof Contradiction. hedge it in with easily be misapplied unless we all indeed certain conditions, which are implicitly be overlooked in it,but nevertheless contained may them unless we state explicitly.

definition of the

I.

When

we

say
true

that

contradictions
same

cannot

be

simultaneously
beware
any

of

the in

of any

ambiguity
confusion
in

our our

consequent

in

must object, we language, and of thought. If there

is the faintest variation

1

the

sense

in

which

we

use

Lectures

"

Archdeacon
3

Farrar's

Cf. Michelet,

Logic,Vol. III. p. 89. Life and Writings of St. Paul. Esquissede Logique, 3, 4, 12.
on

II. 590.

THE

PRINCIPLE

OF

CONTRADICTION.

37

our

terms, that

our a man we

law

does
may

not

hold the
to
same

good.
time

We wise

may

admit
not

be

at

and

wise, if
wisdom.
mean

are

alluding
in the he is

two

different

kinds

of

If

wise, we
man

that

in
man

business is not
on

matters,

is proposition: This man a prudent, sensible, canny in the proposition: and he holds
many

This

wise, that

foolish

opinions
sitions

may

speculative questions, the two propo be simultaneously true, in spite of their

contradictions. If I
say

being
he
sense

verbal clever

of him

that

is

and

in the American using the word fellow, of an amusing, witty, pleasant companion, that he is not a clever fellow, afterwards assert
a

using good
be

the

word

in the

English meaning

of

man

of

capacity,the two statements, notwith both standing their apparent incompatibility, may
mental in
accordance
common

with words

fact. which

There do

are

compara

few tively variation

not

admit

some

meaning, and the fainter the variation the more necessityfor being keenly alive to it. An time be at the same and not event impossible may the word used to signify impossible, according as we
in moral the
pass
same or

absolute time the Our the

be

be impossibility. A man may if obsequious and not obsequious,

to

at
we

from
term.
on

old-fashioned friend
may

the
at

modern home

use

of
at
;
a

the

be
our

yet

not

home,

occasion

of

unwelcome

visit

dog
may and

may

intelligent, yet
we

not

intelligent ; prudence simple,yet

that
not

require that
so 2. on.

should

be

simple,
our mar

We
in

must

also

take

care same

we

use

words

referenceto

the

standard.

THE

FOUNDATIONS

OF

LOGIC.

walking fast who hour, but a horse

same so

is

completes
who
at

five miles
same

within time

the

takes

the

for the

distance

is not
say

all fast in his rate the

rate
"

of motion,
an

that

we

may

that
not

of five miles for

a

hour fast

is both for
a

fast and
In and

fast
same

fast

man,

not

horse.

the
many

way,

broad, soft,wild,
modified have
l"ut
no are

other

large,high, adjectives are joined, and

themselves,
Wood
is in

by

the

word and
to

to which

absolute referred

fixed

they meaning
a

are

it

as

their

standard.

esteemed

softwhen
not

it is of

should
a

call soft
years

child
reverse

of ten

the

of tall if

consistency which we if we were speaking of wool ; old is tall, though it would be the same its stature were eight

years
3.

later.
In

be
6art not

and
man

must composite objects, we in applying our exact terms to the same very be fair and of the object. A child may yet case we are speaking of eyes fair,if in the one A complexion and in the other of its hair.

speaking

of

may his

be

cold

and

yet
heart
in

not
not
:

cold, cold
cold
he may be

in reference

to
warm

bodily temperature,
and
generous

in respect

of his

strong and strong in

yet
his

not

strong, strong

his

muscles,

not

general constitution. insist must 4. Lastly,we

at the
same

on

the exact The

of the words
not at

time.
same

be true the
same one

and

false of the of time

application same thing can object of thought

must

point
instant that this

; but
was

we

remember

that in
true

that which
was

false may
may

become false. of two

and is for

which
reason

true
our

become

It

that

comparison

TH"

PRINCIPLE

OF

CONTRADICTION.

39

external
We
never

phenomena
can

can

never

be

perfectlyexact.
of
a
'

eliminate the
two

the

element

difference While
we

of time
were

between

observations.

have observing the first, the second may not com are changed its character, so that we paring together P and Q as simultaneously existing, but it exists at the P as and moment x Q as it exists at the moment A complete reversal x + dx. of the conditions take of being may place in the fraction interval non-life with the of
a

second. the
state

There

is

no

measurable the
state

between
or

of life and
act

of

death.

An

of

contrition

flashing
of
a

rapidityof lightning through the soul dying man, entirely change utterly and may
character that he who of his
was

the
so

soul

and the

his

relations of

to

God,
a

before

enemy

God,

rebel,
at

loathsome
very
next

and

deserving
a

of

hatred, becomes

the

instant, by
of His

sort

of

magic transformation,
and

the

friend of

God,
love.

His
In

loyal subject, beautiful

such
not
are a case
as

worthy
and and
not not

this, good

good, obedient
meet two
to

and

obedient,meet for Heaven

true

for Heaven,
seconds

of the

same

object
of
of
man

within Or

of fleetingtime.
very

take

different

illustration
one

the
no

law, and necessityof thus guarding our in practical life. infrequent occurrence counsel being tried for robbery. The defence that the prisoner cannot urges
because

is the

for be

guilty
was
a

the
a was

witnesses

allow whiskered very

that

the

robber whereas murder

bearded,

heavy
on

man,

the

prisoner
shaven.

the

day

of the

closely
and
not

His

argument

is that

bearded

4o

THE

FOUNDATION:

OF

LOGIC.

bearded, shaven
the
same
man

and
at

not
same

shaven,
time.

cannot

be

true

of

the

But

if the counsel

for the time

was

show that prosecution can the moment enough between

and

committed
go

the moment
off beard

to

home

and

shave

the

defence

the condition These

obviously becomes of simultaneityis

seem

prisoner had when the robbery of his apprehension and whiskers alike, worthless, because
fulfilled.

the

not

four conditions

obvious

enough,
other.

but

largeproportion of the error arises from a neglect of one

men

prevalent in
or

the world When it is

the

find

contradictions

in

Rational

Theology,
standard from

because
are

the

they do not see referred necessarily perfections of man,

that which
is
a

that
to
a

the

attributes

of God from them in

different

and human

exclude

selves

perfection only

When contingent nature. they attack the Christian religionas teaching that do not which it is impossible to believe,they often analyze exactlyand distinguishfrom each other the various They do meanings of the word impossible. virtue of man's
finite and
not

distinguishbetween
of which

that which
sense,
or

contradicts
the laws

the
pro

every-day evidence and that bability,

laws

of

contradicts

the

immutable

of Reason.
The

to all

Principleof Contradiction whatever. other principles

which all others would
have
are no

is therefore
It is the

prior
with

ultimate
and

principleto
out

reduced,
force.
on

which

they
In

It is the its
own

principle which
basis.
"
1

pre-eminently stands
science," says
III. iii.8"
10.

all human

Suirez,1 "and

Disp. Met.

THE

FOUNDATIONS

OP

LOGIC.

all.
no

Non-being
for
us we us

from

the very

nature

of

things,has
name

sort

of existence.

But

Non-being
must

is but

anpther

for

and falsity,

Hence,
is above fore based with
us,

for

it is the

all self-evident branch it.

In

begin by repudiating it. negative principle which and there manifest, and knowledge
must

every upon

of

human

be

realities but

with

not are Logic we as coming into existence realities as coming within

concerned

outside the

of

range

of

our

intellects. various

We

have

not

to

consider

the order the

into which
order

truths

fall in themselves, but

as

into which mental

they

fall

they
this has it

take

their

place
In the

in the

our

furniture.

In

latter character
no

Principleof Contradiction order of truths, as known to us,

But

rival.

negative principleis We need some preliminary to something farther. positiveprincipleseparate from it,depending indeed time if self-evident, it, but yet at the same upon
this
once

reigns supreme. as only satisfactory

the

Principle

of

Contradiction

is

previously

granted.
II. THE PRINCIPLE be termed
OF

IDENTITY.

"

This

second

principlemay
It is enunciated
own

in the

Principle of Identity. formula : Every being is its

the has
or
an omne essence ens

nature, or, Every beingis that which

of its own
cst habcns

(omne

ens

est

sua

proprianatura,
foundation
;

essentiam).

This
and

principle is
universal.

the

of all definition all definitions

that I

of all demonstration
most

it is of

the

In

every

definition

lay

THE

PRINCIPLE

OF

IDENTITY.

43

down,
ink is

am

stating a
If, for

universal
a

law.

of this particular instance that, All instance, I lay down

used for purposes of writing or printing, liquid of ink, I am nature essence or stating the proper of the proposition, and so merely a particularcase nature. Every beingis its own If I lay down I that, A cygnet is a young swan, am again assigning to a special kind of being its if my Or own special nature. proposition is, All eicosahedrons are figures,I am acting on rectangular this same though here it is but a portion principle, of an that I am eicosahedron complex nature if I state that, All chimpanzees assigning. Similarly, statement are sensitive, gives a part of the nature my of chimpanzeeism. But
every

of the

while

the

Principle of Identity
with its
own

states
or

that

being
does

is identical
mean

nature

essence,

this
It
ens

is not
est
ens.

than

this.
so

merely its identity with itself, expressed in the form, Omne sufficiently The principle of Identity goes further of Being is to nonAs the first relation
not

Being,

its second Prius

est

relation
esse

is to tale

its

own

charac
comes

teristics.

quam

esse.

First
to

Being
then
own

with
comes

its consequent that which which is

relation

Non-being,

characterizes

Being

"

its

necessarily identical with it. First comes the Principle of Contradiction, pre senting Being in its primary relation ; then comes the Principle of Identity, stating the relation of Being, not to itself (for such relation is no relation
nature,
at

all,any
own

more

than

man

could which

be
is

called

one

of
in it

his

but relations),

to that

comprised

44

THE

FOUMDATlOttS

Of

LOGIC.

Thus tion ideas of of

cygnet is
not to

young

swan,
to

states

the

rela

cygnet

but itself,

the
are one

combined

youth
states

and

swan-nature

which
to

in it,and The
same

this relation

be

comprised of identity.
not

notion
as, the

of cygnet is resolvable notion of young

swan. are

into, but
It may

the
true
we

be

that objectively are talking now The

are

the two of the which

things
are

but identical,

foundation

of mental
to
our

truth.
minds
act

two

ideas the
same.

presented
are

not

They
the

united

in

the

of

definition, and with,

modern
not

identical
we error.

Here

have The contains

given is coextensive with, the thing defined. be to on our guard against a that Every Principleof Identity,
its
own

definition

being
been forward
basis that

is

or

nature

or

essence,

has

distorted into

by

some

modern

and logicians,

thrust

the first

place as
It has

the first and clothed

stated in
a

ultimate
in
a a

of all Truth.
was

It has

been been

garb

not

its

own.

formula

which

has

the

plausible appearance
it has forward then
as

and simplicity, of it)been put

(or rather
the

rival

guileless this perversion of the Principle

President of the
and
as

of

of Contradiction
Court
not

for the

office of

of Final

Appeal

for all Demonstration,

principleat of the Principle has usurped to itself the name all, itself in the simplest of all and enounces of Identity, Propositions A is A, or, Every objectof thought is obvious the most identical with itself.It is indeed the wildest scepticwould of all truisms, which never
no really
"

only independent of it superior and proper lord. which This new Principle,

in its decisions,but

its

is

THE

PRINCIPLE

OF

IDENTITY.

43

venture
own

to

deny.
Its

Even

the
an

man one

existence
is A.

(if such

questions his exist) cannot deny

who

that A
as

the

backbone

upholders accordingly represent it of all thinking, the all-pervading

It

mental act. for granted of every taken principle is to be the underlying basis of every department knowledge. Art, Science, Philosophy, Theology,
are

of all

to

rest

on

is

A,

and

without

it would

cease

to

be. This is all very if satisfactory into it is correct. before and

set

We
we

must,
dethrone this very

however,
the

examine

its claims

new-comer

Principleof Contradiction must in its place. We scrutiny before

St. Thomas
account
we

up
to

subject it
a

careful and

accept

law

which

Aristotle

do

not

recognize.

What

is the

given

of this New ?

Principle

by

its great "The

advocate, Sir W.
relation
to

Hamilton

of Identity(principium Identitatis) principle the stands in of total

sameness

expresses

in which of

concept
sameness

all, and
it

the
to

relation

partial
con

which

stands In

each, of its words,

It is

stituent the

characters.

other

it

declares
and

impossibilityof thinking the unlike. characters as reciprocally

the
every

concept

its in

expressed
A

formula

is

A,

or

=A

and

by

is denoted

thinking logicalthing, every product of our faculty, concept, judgment, reasoning, "c. The principle of Identity is an application of
"

"

the

equivalence of a whole of all its parts taken and together, to the thinking of constituent of a thing by the attribution qualities The characters. or concept of the thing is a whole,
principle of
the absolute

46

THE

FOUNDATIONS

OF

LOGIC.

the law

characters
may,

are

the

parts of that
thus

whole.
"

This

therefore,be also
"

enounced,

Every

relation the thing is equal to itself, for in a logical thing and its concept coincide ; as, in Logic, we abstract the altogether from realityof the thing
which
same

the

concept
we

represents.
say

It

is,therefore,the
is

whether

that

the

concept

equal

tc

thing is equal to itself. The law has, likewise, been expressed by the is contained formula, In the predicate,the whole which in the subject is contained im explicitly, plicitly."1 But this much-vauntefl principle, which puts for ward such all-embracing demands and requiresthat
"
"

all its characters, or

that the

all else should

be subservient be
a

to

it, proves

on

careful
a

inspection to precedence
which
we

miserable

impostor, usurping
sort

to which

it has the

no

of claim.

It has

its foundation
Sir W.

in

Hamilton

shall have

occasion

theory of Conception puts forward, and of which to speak in a future chapter.

shall
to

false

Without
may
state

anticipatingwhat we here that according

there
our

him

say, idea of

we an

than its various attributes object is nothing more tied together in a bundle, combined together in a their co-existence in not from sort of unity derived has but from the rnind which the object as realities, power
to

invest
as a

them of

with

it.

Hence

he

regards
bundle

Definition
and

sort

untying thing
that

of this mental
not
as an

declaration the
nature

of its contents, of the

process
1

unfolding
is but
a

of

defined.

It

reversal

of the

the mind
80.

has

previously

Logic, I. 79,

THE

PRINCIPLE

OF

IDENTITY.

47

performed,
Hence
a

not

an

analysisof
is the
contents

the

object of thought.
of
a a concept,

Definition
up

definition

summing
a

of

the talks

of the concept. All

constituent
same

is

subjective.He
and concept,
say

of the that is

characters whether

of
we or

asserts

"it is the

that the concept

equal to

all its

characters,
Hamilton

that the
leads between
nature

thing
the

is

equal to

itself."

Sir W.

his readers

astray by ignoring the distinction

an a

identity of
the

objectwith
concept with

its

own con

and

identityof
The is A
a

its
be

stituent characters. in the

formula, A
to

indeed, may + b+c + d-t-, "c.

one,

stated other

;
no

the

ought
treat

be

stated
two

is A.

He
as

has the he of the

right to
He the

these
not

propositions
were

same.

would

do
to

so

it not
a

that

supposes

concept

be

simply

bundle
up

the
name

attributes A.

of a, 6, c, d, "c., summed
This is
our

under

objection to Sir W. on Principleof Identity. It is founded ideas false analysis. It regards our
first bundle of
us

Hamilton's
a as

basis
a mere

of

of with

qualities. It
the idea within

confuses
us.

the

object outside
in it the
or

It has

latent

venom

of his doctrine
to

of all mind
sort

concepts
that

ideas

being

relative
not

the

individual

forms

them, and

possessed
own.

of

any

of

objective reality of

their

Hence, secondly,he
what
true
a

states

respecting the concept

of concept, If I
one

is of

true

of his false notion

as

but say

is not that say

concepts
a

they really are.

substance,no
substance that non-sensitive
even

parsnipis
the that

non-sensitive of

could

that
with

idea of

is identical is
a

nor parsnip,

there

partial

48

THE

FOUNDATIONS

OF

LOGIC.

sameness.

It is true

that
true

the
that

external

realities
are

are

but identical, tical,unless

under

it is not
we

the
under

ideas

iden

regard
himself

ideas

the

false How

light
can

which
A

he

regards them.

parsnips non-sensitive are substances, or that parsnips are not two umbelliferous plants? The objects of thought coincide in instances existingin the external world,
represent
but
not

is

the

proposition

that

in the minds
even

of

men. were

Thirdly,
identical with
A Men is A
are

if it

true

that

an

idea

is

its constituent

characters,this formula

would

apply

to

definitions
is
no

only. by

If I say,

substances, there concepts.

A is A

identity between
a same partial no

the two
ness

What

is meant with
and

not predicate are co-extensive. It does not even provide us with a basis for a propositionin which they are co-extensive, if their comprehension is different, are e.g.. All men

supplies us where subject proposition

support

for

rational

creatures, is
the class of

not
men

the

same

as

is A

for that

although
rational
ness,

is co-extensive
man,

with

of rational
and

creatures, yet
creature,

besides

the

concept
sensitive
if there and

is characterized
must not

by

"c., which life,

be

be

omitted

is to

real

identitybetween
defects
in Sir W.

the

subject

predicate.1
But

all these

Hamilton's

Prin

of cipleof Identity are but the natural consequence which its attempting to take the place of the axiom to have already proved to be the ultimate axiom we
1

Cf. Rev.
I
am

T.

Harper, Metaphysicsof the School,

for several of the arguments

II. pp.

34,

"c.,

to

whom

indebted

here

adduced.

CHAPTER

IV.

THE

FOUNDATIONS

OF

LOGIC

(continuecl).

Summary.
it
" "

The
"

Principle Propositions

of
not

Identity

"

Propositions
or

derived

from

These
Their

tautological
of
a

verbal
a

Propositions Propo
and
ana

limits
"

Distinction and
"

priori

and

posteriori
"

sitions
"

Deductive

Inductive
Are

Sciences all
a

Analytical

Synthetical lytical
Its ?
"

Propositions
Kant's

priori

Propositions Propositions
"

doctrine and

of

priori

synthetical knowledge

"

falsity
truisms

"

-Implicit
to

explicit

Our

advance

from

Truth.

IN

our

last of the

chapter
Human

we

laid
and

down

as

the
the

Primary
ultimate

Law

Mind,
the

therefore of this who

foundation
We showed
a

of

Logic,
how the of
are

Principle
of
many be

Contradiction.
is

denial which
to

intellectual call
We

suicide
"

suicjde

them laid
of

selves
down

philosophers
the
conditions and from

held
for

guilty.
the

necessary
out

validity
all
or

this
error

Law,
arises
We

pointed
the

how of
to

almost
one

human

neglect
on

other

of of from

them.

then

passed

the its
true

Principle
form

Identity,
the have false

and

distinguished
which
as some

it

in

Principle
forward
We its

modern

philosophers
of the the the
Law Law of

thrust

the
now

rival

Contradiction.

must

discuss

of

Identity
source

in

further Truths.

character

of

generative

of

further

THE

PRINCIPLE

OF

IDENTITY.

51

We

have

already
remarked

said

that

the

true

Principle of

Identityis ing, and we

that

the

deductive
at

basis

the all

it is the do
we as

parent
draw basis

of

positive reason end of the last chapter a priori propositions

between its and

of all

Why
the do
are

this

distinction

character

the
a

of all

positive reasoning

prioripropositions? What, moreover, mean we by a priori propositions,and to what they opposed ? Here we enter on an important
parent of
of
our a

part

subject,

which

is, indeed,
which

in

some

respects

but digression,

it is necessary

to

explain here in order to show the true position of the Principleof Identity. The Principle of Identity is stated in general in have the formula we we already given. But when the from descend general to the particular,from Being to some particular kind of Being, the form
that

unfolds the proposition which portion of the nature, of the object nature, or some of which we speak. I apply the general principle, Thus, when Every is its own nature, to that particular object called object
it
assumes

is

square,

the

form that it

that

it assumes,
is
an

or

rather,

the

Proposition
idea of
a

engenders,

square,

viz., Every
that these

square

analysisof the is a four-sided

But

figurewith right angles and

must

equal sides.

here

we

remember from

different

tautologicalor A i. proposition in which analysis of the subject is not sition. It explainsthe nature its essence, and proclaims a fact

propositions arc very verbal propositions. the predicate is an a tautological propo declares of the subjectt
of which
we

may

52

THE

FOUNDATIONS

OF

LOGIC.

be
never

entirely ignorant. beyond generally a mere

gets
the

proposition tautological
the words.
one

meaning of
from

It

is
to

translation

language

another,

or

mean necessarily

repetitionof a set of words which the same no thing. It introduces

which
the
can

ideas
word

beyond
which

those forms

be extracted

from

the

subject. If I say, A ringlet is a little ring,my proposition is tautological. But if I say, A ringletis a lock of hair, twisted into the form of a ring, my proposition is an assertion of the identity of the object with its own nature. Similarlythe followingpropositionsare tautological.
A is a four-sided figure. The Ursa Major quadrilateral is King Charles' Wain. The periphery of an orb is the of a circle. Circumlocution is roundabout circumference

talk.

Parliamentary orator
in

is

man

who
is
no

delivers

orations

Parliament, "c.
which
we

Here
are

there

analysis

speaking or thinking; the statements made are merely verbal, and are of the thing. entirelyindependent of the nature of the The 2. unfolding of the nature object verbal of thought does not mean a mere explana tion. It is an Thus the analysis of the idea. analysis of the object called a triangleis threesided three-angled. The etymological figure, not of a word is often misleading, signification very "c. Our in as villain,hypocrite, silly, analysis of the objectas it is forth the nature set must
m

of the

object of

and itself,

the

object must ordinary language of men,

far
are
we

the

be is

that

which, in
the

represented by
the
limits of

word.

How

to

extend

pro-

PRIORI

ANv

POSTERIORI

PROPOSITIONS.

positionsdeducible
Is its
every

from

affirmative Are

principleof Identity? ol proposition ultimately one

the all the Truths
not.

offspring?
from distinction Those

in

the

world is
a

derived wide tions.

it ?

Certainly
two to

There of

between

classes
one

Proposi
claim this

belonging

the

class

belonging to the Principle as their parent. Those other, though subject to its dominion, and in some nevertheless founded sense it, are something upon
more

than

an are

object,but
ment.

application of the product of

it to

some

individual
or

observation

experi

of They do not merely analyze the nature the subject and it forth in the predicate, as set a instance of the identity of all Being with particular its own is not nature, but add something which
contained the in the idea which forms the

subject of
are

proposition.
This latter class of

Propositions

called

as propositions posteriori opposed to a priori proposi tions. element which is derived an They introduce from outside. They are not necessitated by the very of things. They are nature dependent on experience, and with different experience they may be no longer in a different true. ol state They are reversible things. They are true in the known Universe, but a

there It is the may

not

may

be

Universe

where

they

are

not

true.

possible that in some has light of which be false. They may

another. their
Even

still undiscovered
never

star"

reached
true
are
a

us,

they
and

be

at

one

time

at

if

they
a

in
matter

point

of fact

always true,

truth
are

is not called

of absolute
we

necessity. They

because posteriori

54

THE

FOUNDATIONS

OF

LOGIC.

argue

up

to

them

from

particular facts
govern

which

are

posteriorto
not
a

the laws

which

them.
are a

All the Laws

physicalworld propositions.They cannot priori

inner consciousness. of
No
one

of the

posteriori,
out

be evolved could have

of

our

dis

the Laws or Capillaryattraction, of Light and Heat, by merely sitting in his study and seeking to work .out the problem from first principles. For all these careful observation and experiment needed. laws. were They They are not necessary reversed set or are are reversible,and sometimes
covered

the Law

aside called

if their
a

Divine

Author

intervenes

by

what

is

miracle.
or a

Here

it is that
No

they
a

differ from
can

necessary aside the

laws. priori

Divine

power

set

law

that

all the

angles of

are triangle

equal to
than

priori of things, laws founded the inner nature are on be otherwise than it is. They are which cannot eternal is eternal. therefore God as They existed will exist to all eternity. and before the world was, They stand on quite a different footing from those physical laws which are simply a positiveenactment He could at His good pleasure at any of God, which
case.

any this

that the whole is greater or right angles, It is absolutely impossible that in its part. portion of the Universe, actual or possible,
two

could

be

the

Necessary

or

moment

annul.
to

Corresponding
two

these
On

two

sets
one

of

Laws there

are are

kinds

of science. which
are

the

hand

simply on these a priori As their First Principles laws. eternal, so they are eternal. They all consist of a series of applicaare
sciences

based

DEDUCTIVE

AND

INDUCTIVE

SCIENCES.

55

tions which

of the

Law

of

Identity to
Mathematics

the is

subjects
an
a

with

they
direct
a

deal.

priori

science. all the is

an

Its axioms,

definitions and are postulates, offspringof the law of Identity. Ethics and

priori science,
system
may

therefore
out

the of
a

whole
par

ethical ticular
and

be the

constructed

applicationof
which form.
and
reason as we are

fundamental

laws
same

of
Law

right
in

wrong

concrete

Natural
can can

merely this Theology

attain
to

science,
God
our

(so far
rational

discover
any

priori a knowledge of His nature by

an a

is

faculties) without
the
Law

extrinsic
as our

aid,

starting from d'appui, and

around But and there

of
it
to

Identity
the

applying
about
are us.

various

point objects

other
are

sciences called

in which the Natural the

on

this is not Sciences of

the
are

case.

What

on exclusively based Identity. They all are dependent

not

Principle
it indeed of itself

and
to

own

its sway, them aid.

means

but work

it is not up have their

to

sufficient materials

enable

to

without other

^any

extrinsic

They
of
never

appeal
out

to

sources

for

the

working
have the and

their

conclusions. itself out of

Chemistry
chemical
every

could

developed
fact

concepts
with
a

of the

identity of
could able
not to

being
in other

its

own

nature.

Botany
it had been

have call

advanced

step unless
to

fellow-workers
have
to
no

produce
as a

its results. unless

up

Zoology
it could

would

existence aid

science

appeal
The
one

external of

in of

building
these

its

laws*
is
a

method

procedure

sciences
tc

different

and altogether,

it is

important

fUUNDAllONS

OF

LOGIC.

the

logicianclearlyto
There
are

discern

in what

the

difference

consists. thus
two

main

divisions

of Science, Sciences

as

there

are a

two

classes of

Propositions.All
sciences,or
to
a

are

either

prioriand

deductive

inductive. the is
one

It is very

important
them. certain
to

and posteriori understand aright Deductive

distinction which these

It ends
starts

between from
down

science

starts

and first principles,

from
them. and It

it argues

specialapplicationsof
the universal, the individual.

begins with
with from the

the

general and
and

particular and
the
various

necessary

immutable
consequences

laws,
to

and

from flow

them from

deduces

which this
or

them

when

they
The

are

applied
world

that the
but those

subject-matter.
materials
has with
to

external Deductive
to

furnishes

which say
once

Science which admitted of

deals,
control into

nothing
and

the

laws
are

materials mind

when have

they

the

become

objects
certain

Thought.1
or
a

Mathematics science. immutable

with "c. any
1

is,for instance, a
It
starts

deductive

priori

from
The

axioms.

world

and necessary furnishes it outside

solid bodies, its materials, lines,angles,figures,

But

these

materials
to

it

manipulates
world

without

further

reference

the

external
between the

(unless
deductive

distinction which

is sometimes

made from

those external

sciences therefore
which

derive

their materials

world, and

can

require experience as a condition of their study, and those out be pursued altogether independently of the world
once

side when
an

the

necessary

ideas

have

been

understanding of the
Mathematics

nition conveys.

meaning of the terms belong to the former

acquired and employed as

class
:

such defi

Logic and

Metaphysics to the latter.

58

THE

FOUNDATIONS

OF

LOGIC.

are posteriori, synthetical. a

also

divided

into

analyticaland
in which the

I.

An

analytical proposition is

one

in the subject or is predicate is either contained identical with it,so that from a knowledge virtually of the meaning of words the subject which stand as and predicate we are compelled to assent, and that with infallible certainty,to the truth of the pro position. Thus, for instance, the proposition: All
are planets heavenly bodies, is an analyticalproposi tion, since the predicate "heavenly body" is already in and contained a partialanalysis of the idea of planet. A II sycophants For the same the reason : flatter three sides and have three angles, great, All triangles are analytical propositions because sycophancy in and cludes flattery implies three angles and triangle
,

three sides.

given the laws of thought and a complete understanding of the terms employed, it is abso lutely possibleto arrive at all the analyticalpropo is no There sitions in the world. reason why all the Mathematics be thought should truths of Pure not
Hence,
book reads or a by one who never goes outside of our his study-door. The only limit to the extent propositionsis the inactivity knowledge of analytical feeble and finite intelligence. weakness of our and need the support of sensible We images appealing
out

to eye

and

ear.

Few Euclid

men

can

work
a

out

an

elaborate
their

propositionof
eyes
to

without
Yet
none

figure before
the less
to
are

guide them.

all the The

from piopositionsanalytical

beginning

end.

ANALYTICAL

AND

SYNTHETICAL

PROPOSITIONS.

59

figure adds
facilitates
2.
one our

nothing

to

the

proposition ',it simply

the

apprehension of it. proposition,on synthetical

the adds
an

other

hand, is
in the attri

in which

predicate
to

is not fresh

contained
or quality,

but subject,

it

some

bute, which
never

analysis, however
in it. Such

minute,

could

have

discovered
called

sometimes
our

propositions are they enlarge ampliative,because

When,
are

stock

of

knowledge.
ducks known
to
no

for

instance,
in

I say
or

that that I
am

Canvas-backed
Fools
are

found
of

Maryland, of
their

by

the multitude

words,
ducks

adding
fools what

the
mere

ideas

canvas-backed have

and

analysiscould
into
my

revealed
know

in them.

They
These

convey

mind

fresh

ledge
vation. because

from

outside, requiring experience and

obser

propositions

are

called

synthetical,

together,the inde in the subject and predicate pendent ideas contained respectively. They proceed from the simple to the they synthesize,or
put

composite. existing
fresh have materials

They
our

do

not

make but

use

of

materials

within

minds,
no

which

amount

from the thought out reduced be to already possessed. They cannot the primary law given above, but are regulated by code another of law logic. belonging to material They may be universally true, but their universality does not depend on primary law of thought. any Thus the mortal, is a are proposition, All men because the idea of humanity synthetical proposition, does
not

they introduce of thinking could of knowledge stock

contain
men

the
are

idea

of

fact, all

mortality. As subject to death,

of

matter

but

it

is

60

THE

FOUNDATIONS

OF

LOGIC.

quite
have

conceivable

that

some

healing remedy might

would have
was a

been

provided

which

averted
over,

death that ol

until the time then

of their have death

probation passed
into
is unknown and

and

they would existence,where

a

different state
and

impossible,
at

As

matter
were

of

fact,Adam
exempt
from

Eve,
law
not

their

first

creation,
would
never

the

of death, and forfeited their

have

died, had
the

they

privileges.
are, proposition,All men uni possessedof the faculty of speech,though an a versal,is nevertheless syntheticalproposition. It is quite possible that men had might exist who their ideas of speech, but communicate no power

In

the

same

way

to

one

another

expression. It might exist who though they had

their ideas lectual
does

sign or other external is absolutely possible that men would still be reallyand trulymen, by
some no one

power
to

whatever

of

conveying
in intel

from

the other, but

lived

isolation. include
take

The the

not

analysis of the idea of man idea of speech-possessing, even

word

though we possiblesense.
We is
one

the

speech in
a

the

widest

have

now

seen

that

synthetical proposition

in predicate is not contained further the subject, but requires some knowledge the Laws and of beyond the meaning of the Terms Thought in order to establish it. An analytical proposition,on the other hand, presents in the is already predicate merely a portion of that which in which the

presented in the subject, and requires knowledge beyond the meaning of Terms

no

further
and

the

ANALYTICAL

AND

SYNTHETICAL

PROPOSITIONS.

61

Laws
account

of Thought
we

to

make

good

its

validity.

If the

tical and

is correct, synthe given of them analyticalPropositions differ in no way have described above
as a

from
and
a

the

Propositionswe

priori

An a prioriProposition is identical posteriori. with an a analytical Proposition, and means Propo sition which is simply an applicationof the Principle of
An case. a particular posteriori Identityto some Proposition is identical with a synthetical Proposi which adds tion, and means one something from

outside. stands
on

The its
own

analyticalor
basis, and
The which

priori Proposition
basis
a

that

is the

Law

of

Identity. position is one

of external

or synthetical

Pro posteriori
on

takes

its stand

the

basis

time it experience,though at the same is referable of Identity as Law to the controlling and regulatingit. But
a

here number
are

we

come

into
modern

conflict

with

Kant

and
assert

large
on a

of
some own

logicians, who
therefore

that stand
not

there

synthetical propositions which

basis, and
do
not
are a a

their

priori,

posteriori. They

regard

all

propositions as
of the
some

to an ultimately reducible of the object, but assert nature that there are and immu which, though universal, necessary,

priori analysis

table, nevertheless

introduce
to

in the in
a

predicate
for

some

thing which
motive of

is not this
as a

be

found is

the

subject.
one,

The it is

assertion

good
the

intended School
who

bulwark
all

against
it is

Experimental
and

refer

laws, Deductive
a

Inductive bulwark

alike,to
it is
not

experience,but
founded
on

perilous

if

Truth.

6a

THE

FOUNDATIONS

OF

LOGIC.

We his

will take

the two

instances

given by

Kant

in

first is the The of the P^ire Reason.1 Critique geometrical axiom : A straightline is the shortest line between possible any two points. "We only require," he says, "to represent this statement to see intuitively, quite clearlythat that its contradictory it holds good in all cases, is impossible, that to all eternity the straight line is the shortest way. No will think of warning one of saying about this statement, to be cautious us or have that we not enough experience yet collected make and the assertion for all possible cases, to line might possiblyin some that a crooked cases
turn
out

the

shortest. all

The

statement

is

valid,

know forth experience. We with that it will remain true throughout all experi The is a cognition a priori. Is statement ence. is the important ? That it analyticalor synthetical

independently of

question." This important question following argument :

"

Kant

argues

by

the

In

the

concept
may

accurately we
and

being the shortest

short
are

straight line, however analyze it,the representationof is not contained. Straight way
a

of

diverse

judgment is therefore a priori."

We short and
is
a

the representations synthetical and synthetical

. . .

will

look

into

these

two

diverse the

concepts

real

and examine straight, or only a verbal one.

whether

diversity
we

If it is real,then is
a

must
1

allow
Kant's

that

the

judgment
Reason

synthetical one,

Critiqueof Pure

I. 406. (English translation),

KANT'S

DOCTRINE.

and

is

not

founded

on

the of

law

what between

is the
two
we

meaning points ?
come name

the

Identity. But shortest possible line

of it
we

When

to

analyze
for the shortest

find

that

it is

only
a man

another
means

Distance

the the
and

distance. single word If possible distance. from

10,000

asks

me

distance I
answer

Fastnet

Point

to

Sandy
wards
statement

Hook,
defend

miles, and

after

shortest would the

myself against the charge of misthe by explaining that I do not mean which the Atlantic, but one distance across
a

include West

visit

to

Madeira
on

and my

Demerara
I

and be

India
as

Islands
a

way,
two

should

justlyregarded
shortest distance

lunatic. distance

The

and

expressions, are simpliciter, syno

? We
mean

nymous.
But

what

do of

we

mean

by
one

distance
to

that
order And else

amount

space

which

has

be

traversed
to

in

to

go

straight from
measure a

point
this
from

the ?
one

other.

what than

is the

of

space

Nothing
to

straight line
have for in the

drawn

the

other.
Hence
we name

shortest

distance

merely

simply, and distance has for its definition a straightline drawn from one to the other point. The one expression is an analysis distinction The of the other. between line, straight axiom a shortest line, is merely a verbal our one, and turns out to be an analytical propositionreducible to the identical preposition. A straight line is one which It is therefore from one point to another. goes directly not an a analytical, syntheticalproposition.

another

the distance

o4

THE

FOUNDATIONS

OF

LOGIC.

Or
"

again
Given

let

us

take

Kant's

other
statement

instance 7 +
ever

the

arithmetical that
is
an a

12.

It is inconceivable
sum

7 +

5 could

make

any

but

12.

It

judgment analyticalor if,in the representation 7 + 5, 12 analytical that the equation contained as so an attribute,
be

Is priori judgment. It would ? synthetical

this
be
were

would

self-evident.

But

it is not
'

so.

7 +

Add the proposition, says The predicate 12 says that they have been added. subject is a problem, the predicate its solution. in the solution is not immediately contained The does exist in the several not problem. The sum in the representation. If this attribute terms as an be unnecessary. In the case, counting would were add the judgment 7 + 5 order to form 12, I must something to the subject, viz., intuitive addition. The judgment is then synthetical and synthetical

of the

subject quantities.' The

5, the

priori."
To this argument
we

together logical copula. The

not
mean

it confuses

the

reply that in the first place equational symbol and the

5
"

that

12

is

proposition 7 + the predicate, so

a

12

does if the

that

an analyticalone, proposition were in the subject 7 + 5. It is tained not equivalence or virtual identity, means

it would

be

con

proposition oi
It
are

of inclusion.

that
or

five units

seven

units

equivalent

units. But, virtuallyidentical with twelve passing this by, is it true that there is anything added is not to the predicate which already con The fact of intuitive addi tained in the subject? But this intuitive addition does tion," says Kant.
to
"

66

THE

FOUNDATIONS

OF

LOGIC.

is the five is In
one

symbol, in conjunction the symbol.1

the
same

with

those

for which

way,
an

The

whole

is

greater than
"

each

of its parts, is analyze whole we

contains
"

analyticalproposition.
that

If

we

find

it

means

that

which

more

parts than
contains
more

one," while

greater means

that

which

sition is therefore

parts,"and the propo equivalent to an analysis of the

so

concept
the

whole, and
All

is

a own

particularapplicationof
nature.
on

Law,

Being

is its

Mathematics,

then,
add

rest

propositions. They
1

analyticala priori save a nothing to them

quoting Mr. Mill's argument against the instance of that as an a priori necessity of numerical propositions, illustrious philosopher's method The : expression two pebbles and one pebble (he says, Logic,i. 289) and the expression three pebbles,' for the same indeed stand aggregation of objects,but they by no Three stand for the same means physicalfact. pebbles in two do not make the parcel, separate parcelsand three pebbles in one same impression on our senses, and the assertion that the very same pebbles may, by an alteration of place and arrangement, be made to of sensations the other, though a very set or produce either one is not an identical one. It is a truth familiar proposition, known to inductive and and constant such truth, us by early experience ; an
I cannot
" ' ' '
.

refrain

from

truths This

are

the foundation

of the science
an

of number." of
1
=

paragraph
In

is

excellent

example
that his
2

Mr.

Mill's
a

argument.
learnt arranges

order

to

prove
turns

is into

style of proposition
and
two

from
his

experience,he pebbles
the
one

numbers
Then

pebbles
puts the
from of

into

separate
side

parcels.
side
a

he

parcels and
you
one see

that

the two
"

parcel?

He

parcel by parcels produce quietly introduces

then

and

quietly says:
sensation differences differences and
to

"Don't the

different external

place
facts To in

and

arrangement his point. Besides, it is

and

appeals to not question

truth which

these

very of concrete

to prove

material intellect. is to

present

to

sense,

but and

of abstract that

present
the

the

bring
a

in sensation

appeals

to sensation

bring

confusing element

which

of itself renders

argument

valueless.

KANT'S

DOCTRINE

FALSE.

67

system of abridged notation, which

use

is

only

special
and

of

technical

language.
even

All

the
most

propositions of
abstruse first pro
to

Pure

Mathematics,
are

the

complicated,

the
are

elaboration all

of these

positions,and principlewhence depend.

We have

ultimately reducible they proceed and on which

these instances

the

they

taken

from

Mathematics

that the attack is chiefly it is here partly because mathematical truths come made, partly because those sciences of other from more directlythan without the intervention of the of Identity, the Law other primary laws of Contradiction, Causation, and

Excluded
readers

Middle. that the

same

But

we

desire

to

remind

our

is true

of all

Propositions

sciences. In Theo a priori belonging to the strictly logy, Ethics, Psychology, Metaphysics, there is no not ultimatelybe re single proposition which may duced to the Proposition Every Being is its own All a nature. priori intuitions beyond this are of Parcimony, which condemned forbids by the Law conclusion Our therefore assumptions. unnecessary
"

identifyinganalyticaland hand, and synthe a prioripropositions on the one the other, and this though tical and on a posteriori there are some distinguished names opposed to us.
is that
we are

right

in

The
nize

foundation the the universal

case

of the

error

is the of the

failure
Law

to

recog

parentage

of
we

Identity
neces

in

of all propositions to which

as soon us. as

assent sarily

the

meaning

of the

terms

is

made

known

to

One

remains. difficulty

If all the

propositions

68

THE

FOUNDATIONS

OF

LOGIC.

priori science are but an analysis of the ideas of them we already possess, how is it that by reason informed we acquire fresh knowledge, and become of that of which we were ignorant before ? It seems advance that we should never by sciences which add nothing from outside to our store of knowledge. This distinction objection is solved by the and between explicit knowledge. Explicit implicit in knowledge is that knowledge which we possess and of the possession of which are we itself, fully conscious. Implicit knowledge is that knowledge which is contained from, know in, or is deducible
a

of

ledge already possessed by us ; but which we do not have We not yet realize as existing in our minds. it from its premisses, or become aware yet deduced
of its To
asserted

reality.
take
a

familiar

instance.
I

have

often

regard it almost as are a truism, that All animals possessedof feeling. taught My acquaintance with zoology has moreover
the

proposition,nay,

animals. These two are jelly-fish pro intelligence. positions exist side by side in my But I am staying at a watering-place facing the broad one Atlantic, and day, after a morning
me

that

All

spent

among blue

my
waters

books,
of
ocean.

go

for
As

a we

sail
scud

on

the

along before the favouring breeze, we through a pass floating in lazy helpless perfect shoal of jelly-fish
deep
ness on

the surface
I

of the water
my

; and

in

moment

of

mischief,
the

drive

through
the

body

of

performance of

right unfortunate After an jelly-fish. this feat, I remark half-inquir-

iron-feruled

stick

IMPLICIT

AND

EXPLICIT

KNOWLEDGE.

69

if this jelly-fish I wonder inglyto my companion : feels being run through ! and I make the remark all the Yet doubt. of unsatisfied in all the sincerity in full possession of the two premisses : time I was are All animals are of feeling. All jelly-fish possessed From animals. which, by the simplest possibleform
"
"

of

reasoning, there syllogistic sion : Therefore all jelly-fish are

But

follows

the

conclu

of feeling. possessed

that con drawn point of fact I had never clusion. My knowledge respecting the feelings oi was implied in knowledge I already pos jelly-fish in

sessed, but consequent

was

not

unfolded

or

deduced
It
was as

from

it

as

from

antecedent.
as

not implicity

knowledge, and explicit this implicitcondition,

tical purposes.

long
was

it remained for
prac

in

it

unavailable

When,
to

however,
the

on reflecting

the

matter,
from

I call these

premisses above premisses proceed to draw

mind

stated, and
their

legitimate conclu realized all have I not only that sion, when that all jelly and animals are possessed of feeling, fish are are animals, but also that all jelly-fish then on knowledge enters possessed of feeling, my
a new

phase,
am

it has in
own

become of

explicitinstead
a

of

implicit. I
never

possession
before.

fact

that

I had

made therefore

my
an

Every
mastered

rational of the

has

almost who of

unlimited has

range

being implicit
axioms

knowledge.
and

One

definitions

mathematics,
in

knows

implicitly
differential But he
may

all

Euclid,
know

algebra, trigonometry,
mathematics

the

calculus, pure
uot
a

general.

single proposition explicitly. They

hav""

yo

THE

FOUNDATIONS

OF

LOGIC.

all

to

be

unfolded,
of mathematics

argued
no

out

step
fresh

by
facts
but

step.
are

By
added

the

study
our

to

intellectual of

stock-in-trade,
facts
unused

we

learn

to

make which

use

before,

to

develope dig
mental up

that

was

previously
hitherto
is

undeveloped,
buried in
our

to

stores

of

knowledge
This

store

house.
valuable

one

reason

why
purposes. of
our

mathematics

are

so

for avail

educational ourselves

They

teach

us

how

to

existing
treasure

knowledge, lying

to

employ
within What
deductive
us,

properly
and

an

unlimited before.

hid

useless

to

us

is

true

of

mathematics,
of

is

true

of

all

the all

sciences,
of

logic,
which

ethics,
start

theology,
from

branches

knowledge
and

general particular
and

priori

principles,
All their
truisms

argue

down

to

facts.

propositions
in

are

analytical,
But it is

therefore
truisms in

are

disguise.
make up

these of all

disguise
is
necessary,

which
and

the

sum

truth

that

immutable.

CHAPTER

V.

THE

FOUNDATIONS

OF

LOGIC

(continued}.
meanings
of

III.

Principle
Cause

of

Causation
"

Various Cause
"

Principleuncon

active

and

immediate

not

invariable,
"

ditional,
Reason.

antecedent
"

Meaning
of Excluded of

of

Event Middle

Law Mill
"

of
on

Sufficient
Laws

IV.

Principle

of

Thought
of
Mill's

Mill's
"

Principle
"

Uniformity
of

in

Nature

"

Fallacy
"

argument
a

Principle
"

Uniformity Principle
of

Derivative

Involves
"

Petitio

Principii

Bain's

Consistency

Its

suicidal

scepticism.

IN

our

last

chapter
to

we

discussed kinds of

the

Law

of

Identity
We and know

in
saw

its

relation that it

various

Propositions.
all branch the
or

necessarily
power

regulates
over

thought
of

has

controlling
But
we

every

ledge.
influence mental

distinguished
it
exerts
over

between Inductive

guiding
experi
it

that sciences in the

and

the

all-important
or a

position
sciences,
the
supreme

occupies
which
master.

Deductive fruitful

priori
well
as

of

it is the We
and

parent
out

as

pointed
a

the

difference and

between also be We

priori

posteriori
and

science

tween

analytical

synthetical
the truth of

propositions.
Kant's
are

then that time arrived

inquired
the
a

into of
and

assertion,
at

axioms

mathematics

the

same

priori
at

synthetical
that
no

propositions,
such

and

the that

conclusion all the

propositions priori
science

exist, but

propositions

of

THE

FOUNDATIONS

OF

LOGIC.

finallyreducible by analysis to the principle that Every object of thought is identical with its own that if nature. to the difficulty Finally, in answer Truisms mere analyticalpropositions are they do add examined into the to not our knowledge, we distinction between and knowledge, implicit explicit and useful showed how a part is played by the analyticalpropositions of a priori science, and by the deduction of conclusions from their premisses, fund in rendering explicit and available the hidden of implicitknowledge which hitherto was practically
are

useless We Laws

to
now

us. come

to

the

third

of the

Fundamental

of

Thought.
PRINCIPLE may
must
OF

III.

CAUSATION.
as

"

The
:

Principle
is

of Causation

be

stated
a

follows
or,

Every of
some

event nature

have it

cause;

Everything that

such

that

can

begin

to exist must

have

Every change implies have a Causation; or, Every product must producer. in the Law do we What cause mean by the word the is not This that we have just enunciated ? which place to explain the various kinds of causes
source

whence

it proceeds ; or,

exist in the world.

But
must

for the
have
a

better

understand

ing
kind

of
of

our cause are

Law

we

clear notion

of the

the
not

necessityof
here

which

it enunciates.
cause,
as or

We
or

speaking
;
nor

of the material

that

out

of which
statue

the of

marble which
as

of

object is made, the formal cause,

its determinate the

the that

the

givesto the material design present in

character,
and

sculptor'smind

THE

FOUNDATIONS

OP

LOGIC.
-"-n"l-

would may

have have

prevented
inherited
may
a

its

occurrence.

The

patient
from
his

weakly
had
an

constitution
attack

parents, he
fever for the
states
some

have

of rheumatic

months time

some

he may have been previously, working at an unhealthy trade, but

not enumerate

physician
the
cause cause.

does

these
states

when

he

of

death.

He

immediate
a

Beside

this,at the time

coincidences The

only the of death,

may

number

of unfavourable
to

have

concurred

have patient may been insufficiently protected against the cold, he in have been violent a perspiration when may suddenly exposed to it,he may have been weakened of sufficient food, but of these the certificate by want

the

effect.

general rule says nothing. They active but they are not are circumstances, predisposing The circum one agents in producing the result. of death is acute stance given as the cause congestion of the lungs, because this,according to the ordinary
as a use

of

death

of terms, the active

Mr.

was cause

at

the

same

time

the

immediate

and

of death.
on

Mill, in his chapter

dust

Causation, attempts
eyes

to

throw

into the

reader's

by keeping
of
an

out

sight these two viz.,immediate cause,

of
He

characteristics
influence
we

efficient
influence.

and

active

tells us, for instance, that the sentinel from

his and
common

speak
as

of the absence
cause

of

post
that

the

of the
a

surprise of the army, cause according to

this, though

true true

parlance,
instance is
a

is

no

producingcause. leading one.

name

But

his

most

mis

for the

is another surprise of the army unexpectedness of the enemy's arrival,

The

MEANING

OF

CAUSE.

and is
no

this

is

negative
which
comes

idea.

But

negative
It

idea

event

into certain is

being.
event,

simply
in the
expec

states

the

absence

of

which

instance tation of

brought forward,
the

the

previous
is accounted otherwise presence
under

foe, and
of that

its absence which would

foi have

by the absence the produced

sentinel
at

effect, viz., the

post,
have who would notice

of

the

his

circumstances

given

of

the
been

approach.
cient
cause

The of

sentinel the be

would

have the

ordinary enemy's the effi of

of the the

notice, but
called the

absence

sentinel absence

cannot

cause efficient

of

the notice.
we

Similarly,when
stone's

say

that

the

cause

of
not
mean

the

fall is the

stone's

weight, we
stone
we was

do the

that

the

weight
its fall.

of

the What

agent which
the the
But

produced
attraction law of

exercised

by

the the

is that reallymean earth according to

cause

was gravitation,

of

its fall.
to
as

this idea

is not

passed
of the

into earth

popularized sufficiently common parlance. Just

does
not

have the

as

yet

motion

prevent

us

from

following saying
that

appearances

rather

than the

and realities,

the

sun

has

risen, so

fact that earth rather

the

active the

agent
stone,

is the
does

attraction
not

of the
us

than

prevent
the

from

rather

than

and realities,

following appearances saying, in common par

stone

lance, that
its fall.
Cause

weight

of the

is the

cause

of

does therefore

not

mean

invariable, uncon
the

ditional

antecedent, for
active

this

ignores altogether
in

necessity of

influence

producing

the

effect.

THE

FOUNDATIONS

OF

LOGIC.

ignores the dependence implied in the effect. To say that the effect is that variablyand
circumstances
are

It

very which
as

word

in

under

all

possible,as
on

well
and

actual,

follows
two

the

cause,

that

they
in the
con

merely
of

detached

facts which belie the

co-exist
common

order
sensus

succession,

is to

meaning of words. Cause in working out the effect, implies an activity exerted in its production. Those a positive energy would who reduce to the our conception of cause sense assigned to it by Mr. Mill ought in con into sistency to declare that all things which come existence into existence of themselves, for,if come
effect
cause,

of mankind

and

the very

does

not

imply
is

if that which the

activity of an efficient produced no longer needs a

open
to
us

the

producer,
that the of their
own

only

alternative

will be

effects achieved

the task

being, and that all produced are self-produced. here But not are we treating the subject of Causation ex are merely explaining professo. We in the Law of Causation. what mean we by cause from this is clearlyunderstood, the source Unless will be law arises which not our sufficiently
apparent.
The
turns

being authors are things which

of

Law
out to

of Causation, when
be that

of
The

the

Law

carefully examined, the application to a special case nature. Every Being is its own

idea

of
is

of what
is

of

such

in the idea is contained cause efficient called Being, or Being which Inceptive that it can nature a begin to exist.

It makes

no

difference

whether

we

call it event,

LAW

OF

SUFFICIENT

REASON.

77

simplest form of this Law has a cause the proposition: Every effect ; which is some equivalent to the proposition: Every effect cause or broughtinto being by an efficient thingeffected
effect,or

change.

The

is is

merely a particularapplication of the proposition : Every beingis identical with its own nature.
and this is

the between substitute we event, the nexus effect subject and predicate is a little less apparent. Event which is a fact or circumstance from certain proceeds
If for

pre-existingfact or facts. less than no implies effect

from existed for its in all

The that

mere

word
not not

event

it has need

existed
have

eternity (or at all events that from all eternity),1 and

on

it is

dependent
or

being

its antecedent it
comes

(in time it,owes

at

least

nature), that
from

from

its being to

it,is brought into existence

therefore
event causet
or

which
not

result, is
whose
in

by it. The antecedent it is the it proceeds, of which merely its antecedent but its
its existence
as an

to

agency the
to

event
a

is

due. it may the

Hence be

form, Every
the above

event
no

has

cause,

reduced

Law,

less than

in

forms This

previously stated.
Law is sometimes with another stated
name.

in

another

form

and

invested the
Law

It is sometimes and

called in the
reason,

Reason, of Sufficient
:

expressed

formula
or,
as

has a sufficient Everything existing reason. Nothing exists without a sufficient thus formulated The has Law
account a

The the
1

Law Law
This

wider of

range

than is
of

of Causation. qualificationis
that
we

Causation
of the

necessary say that

on

opinion
world

St. Thomas, all

cannot

the

creation

of the

from

impossible. eternity is intrinsically

78

THE

FOUNDATIONS

OF

LOGIC.

applicableonly to things which

of Sufficient Reason alone of all of
reason a

are

created, the Law

as

to God

the

Creator

well.

He

existence sufficient God which

one

things that exist is God, though it has

in Himself. But

uncaused.
no

The
has
a

cause,

the

existence
and the

of
law

is not

primary fact professesto account primary

the
Laws prove existence

of

Reason,

for His
of

existence We

is not have

of the

Thought.
of
a

first to

First
done

Cause

by
and

independent arguments. having previously proved

First
ence our

Having
that
or we

this,
save

all

things
able

the exist

Cause outside Law

to

have
of all
save

cause

reason are

of their
to

themselves,

extend

things
God

whatever.

After sufficient

proving
reason

that all
the

things
the
in

have

in

efficient
as

cause

outside
Cause
we

of themselves, and
has
a

that
01

God

First

sufficient
the

reason

existence His

Himself,
under

combine universal

Creator

and

creatures

the

Proposition,All

But this reason. things that exist have a sufficient First Principle. It is or Proposition is no axiom in itself the unites a complex Proposition which the derivative has a cause, with axiom, Every effect effect. Proposition,The First Cause is Its own

The tion

reader
not

will observe
state

that the Law

modern

of Causa
most

does

(as
us

some

writers

would unfairly
exists has
a

have

believe) that Everything thai

form
it is

cause.

In this and

quite

untrue,
were

since
worded
our

God

is uncreated

uncaused.
we

If it

thus, the
law

that objection,
and then

first formulate from be it Him

on

universal

exclude

Whom

all existence

depends,

would

perfectly

PRINCIPLE

OF

EXCLUDED

MIDDLE.

79

valid. tion. enemies

But It

this is is
a

one

to misrepresent entirely of the unworthy devices

our

posi
of the

of

prioriphilosophy.
OF

IV. fourth
is the

PRINCIPLE and last

EXCLUDED

MIDDLE. Laws of

"

The

of these

primary
or,

Thought
is

Principle of
A is not- A
; or,

Excluded
;

Middle.

Everything
A is included

that
A in
or

is not
not- A

of Thought Every object

Whatever
A

is excluded
;

from
two 01,

the

of contradictory
the

or,

Any

contradictories
Between
or, two

exhaust

whole

field of thought;
no

contradictories contradictories This diate

there is
one or

third

alternative;
be true.

Of

two

the other must

law, in all its various

of the the the
means,

forms, is but
that

an we

imme have

application
as

Principle
of of

described If
we

foundation

all demonstration. shall

analyze
that it is not the

meaning
in i:t it.

we contradictory,

find

reference If
we

to

any

concept,
we

whatever

included

analyze not- A,

Hence our analysisnot A. law The will run : contradictory of any objectis that which is not included in that object. This is but a application of the general law: All Being is particular
as

find

result

of the

identical with
Law
are

its

own same

essence.

The

other

forms

of the

but

the

language,
But

and

hidden

in different propositioncouched under more complex words. form it be

in whatever that
our

announced,
are

we

must
contra

be

careful

two

alternatives

dictories

strictly speaking, else they will not exhaust the whole field of thought and the axiom will appear to fail. Thus and unfaithful, holy and unholy faithful
,

and

uneasy,

are

not

contradictories, but

coa-

THE

FOUNDATIONS

OF

LOGIC

and traries, either

it is not

true

to

say

that

holy or unholy. A table or an syllogism is neither holy nor unholy. But it is true to say that : Everything is either holy or not holy, since not holy means not possessed of the attribute oj and this holds good of a table cr a syllogism holiness,
just as
much
as

Everythingis elephant or a

of

wicked

man.

These
are

four fundamental

of principles

not

accepted by

the modern

thought experimental school

all

of whom

John Stuart Mill is the most prominent the English-speaking nations. representativeamong The philosophy of experience professesto start from basis altogether. It asserts the Laws of a different Middle to be Identity,Contradiction, and Excluded but not con primary, but derivative. They are
clusions arrived
at

from

one

universal

axiom
all

which

lies at the foundation tion of Truth, of every This

new

of all

thought, of

investiga
whatever.

intellectual process is set

up

sovereign which
monarchs
the

in the

place of
so-

the time-honoured
called

of the

past, is the
Nature's is
our

Principleof
universal

"This

fact
from

Uniformity of which (says Mill),

action.
warrant

for all inferences

by

different
:

experience,has philosophers in different

the is
course

been

described of lan
:

forms

guage

that

of nature

is uniform

that

the universe of it we
facts have

governed by general laws.

the known
to the

By

means
:

infer from observed

to
or

unknown
:

from
we

facts unobserved
been

from

what

perceived
has
not
come

what

within
1

directly conscious of, our experience."1

344.

to

Mill, Logic, I. 343,

THE

FOUNDATIONS

OF

LOGIC.

senses.

They
of
us our

receive

confirmation

at

almost

every

instant
in upon their

lives.
endless

in

Experimental proof crowds proiusion ; the testimony in

become
a so our

favour

is

so

overpowering, they
minds, that

deeply engraved
we

upon

after

time

inconceiv as regard the contradictory of them able. They are so familiar to us that they become almost part of ourselves, and we regard as primary

and
of
our

priori
uniform these

axioms

what

are

merely

the

results

l experience.'

But

inductions of Nature
rest.

do

not
save

stop short
one

at

any

Axioms

of Laws of the

which

is the

foundation of
an

The

fundamental

Uniformity, which rules instance of Induction,

the Inductive
on

every
not
a

Principle Induction, is itself

mere a

of

process.

It

is

explanation generalization
expresses the

founded

prior generalizations. It
the mind
to

unprompted tendency of experience,to expect that

once
or

generalizeits
found found
basis
true

what
never

has
has

been been

several times
true

and

false,
of all

will be found
our

again.

It is thus

the

knowledge,
But

how

of all Truth. the necessary condition attained is this all-importantprinciple of

an

to

in the
be

Experimental System
an

Philosophy
instinct cannot

It

cannot

immediate

truth,
we

which

is born

in

us,

but
a

of which
mere we

give
as

any

rational able

account,

blind
must

and
assume

unaccount
true

conviction
any

which
to

without
and

attempt
other

prove

it.

Whatever

Reid

certain have

may

asserted
1

philosophers of the last century experirespecting it,the modern

Mill, Logic, I. 260, seq.

MILL'S

PRINCIPLE

OF

UNIFORMITY.

83

mental
any it is such

school

eagerly and very groundless assumption

at

rightly repudiata
;
on a

the careful

contrary,
process

only arrived
a

of

observation

and

gradually by experiment.
in
a

observing that
a our

certain

certain

antecedent

begin with always follows consequent certain limited sphere of

We

experience. We
this observed

cannot,
sequence,

however,
assert
on

on

the

ground

of

any the

invariable
antecedent.

dependence
The
a

of the

consequent
the
two to
we

connexion

between

must
us as

be the have

tested Methods
to
we

by
oj

series

of processes
and

known which

Induction,
hereafter.

of
means

shall

speak
must

By
off
on

of these
cases

processes

separate

those the of

in

which from

the those and

consequent
in which

depends
the
follows which

antecedent,
both

presence

antecedent

consequent
on

from both
to

certain

depend.
extend

gradually
sequence

co-existingcircumstances we are By these means the which sphere within

By eliminatingwhatever

able the

holds

good.

fails

the required conditions, we able to are satisfying declare, with a continually increasing confidence, the circumstances that not only under observed, but

of

under

all

circumstances will make

actual

and

possible, the
wherever
at

consequent
antecedent

its appearance What become

was a

the
mere a

is to be has

found.
now

first of

empirical law
well-established

law

nature,

generalization, which
consequent
on

declares antecedent that the the

the
to

dependence
be
tion

of the
and

the

invariable
between

unconditional, and
two

rela
ante

the
to

is therefore Effect.

one

of

cedent

Cause

consequent

THE

FOUNDATIONS

OF

LOGIC.

It

is

from

the

study
Laws

of

these

generalized
we

uniformities, these
vance

of

Nature, that

ad-

to

that founded

one on

all-embracing Law,
all Law

that genera

lization
which

is

called

the

previous generalizations, of Causation, or more

oj Nature's

properly speaking, the asserts of Action, which

of the
known

Law

Uniformity
the whole uni
event

that there

throughout
is
an

universe

unbroken
every

formity
has
a

in Nature
cause,

by
and
same no a

reason

of which
same cause

the

is
Law
no

always
of
Cau

followed sation is

by the
thus

effect.

The

assumption
clusion affirmative careful

priori law, incapable of proof.

at

instinctive
is
no con

It

arrived

from
It It

mere

enumeration
on a

of

instances.

is based

induction.

is the
the

long and major premiss of all

of all inductions. formal

inductions, yet itself

It is not

widest
mere

the
an

result

of any

inference,
methods

but which

of

inference its

carefully tested
a

by
of

ensure

as validity

method

legitimate

proof.

from many by generalization have should laws of inferior generality. We never of Causation notion had a (in the philosophical of all pheno meaning of the term) as a condition had previously unless many of causation cases mena,
It is arrived
at

been

familiar

to
a

us.

Thus
mount

by
up

process

of

"informal from
our

inference"

we

step

by step
and

first observed

uniformities, limited
own

unreliable

outside

their

sphere, to a firmly-grounded conviction of that final and pervades all-embracing uniformity which
the whole
world.
The

propositionthat

The

course

FALLACIES

OF

THE

EXPERIMENTAL

SCHOOL.

85

of

nature

is

uniform, while
all Inductions,

it is

the
an

fundamental
instance the
most
w?

principleof
obvious kind.
or

is itself

of

Induction, and

Induction
It is
one one

of

by

no

means

of the
of

last

inductions
are

make,
in

at

all events,

those

which

latest

attaining strict philosophicalaccuracy.1

Such
is the
account

given by the experimental philosophy of the all-pervading Principle of the by which Uniformity of Nature, and of the means At first sight it appears it is arrived at. plausible enough,
power and when stated

by
and

Mr.

Mill

with

that

of
he

clear

exposition
from the

apt illustration
the be

which

conceals
of his

reader

by underlying
to

fallacies
away

system,

it is difficult not

led

attractive language and by his well-chosen look closelyinto the processes we style. But when laws deduced and tested instances are by which find that it is unhappily exposed to from facts, we the very it implies from the fatal objection,that
outset

the
to

existence
prove.

of It of

the

very

Law
assumes

which

it pro the

fesses

covertly

from

beginning
indeed and

the

truth

its final conclusion.

Warily

it impose upon does thf us stealthily that it involves principii carefullydisguisedpetitio the ingenious but not ingenuous candour nay, with
"

Coryphaeus
the
to

of of
to

the his

school

warns

his
at

readers2

that
seems

process be liable

argument
very

first He

sight
takes

this

charge.

the

wise

precaution of guarding himself against attack sub on a by pointing out an apparent weakness there is no weakness in truth ordinate point where
'

Mill's Logic, I. 343

"

401,

and

passim.

." Mill,

Logic,

II. 95.

THE

FOUNDATIONS

OP

LOGIC.

At

and all,

thus

he seeks which

to

divert the assailant is inherent in his

as

from

the

real

weakness We
must

whole words of this

system.
as

try and
lies the

explain,in
vulnerable

few

where possible,

point

Achilles. carefully-guarded It is quite true, as Mr. Mill remarks, that there in the early assumption that is no pctitio principii in which the general law is obscure cases really make under it,and will on closer investigation come This it manifest the principle as underlying them. assumption is a necessary hypothesis to be after wards the process is unassailable. proved. Here of the investigation, in the But it is in the course proof by which the existence of the universal Law is established,that the unwarranted assumption is The made. true test a dependence of by which is distinguishedfrom one consequent on antecedent that assumes is one which exists only in appearance, that very reality. When dependence as an existing that he is going to lay the experimentalist asserts down certain
tests to

discover

where

the

Law

of

Causation of the

is at work, he
Law.

thereby implies the

between

existence

The
on

distinction the other

sequences sequences

which which has llic

no

depend

antecedent,
co-existent
unless
we

and

depend on meaning
of

circumstances,
assume

whatever

that
the

Law

Causation

prevails throughout
of
tests

Universe.
If 1

formulate
between
to

series

which

are

to ten

distinguish dencies, and

ance

inherited
off real
are

and

acquired
in

mark

instances

of inherit
appearance.

from

those

which

so

only

FALLACIES

OF

THE

EXPERIMENTAL

SCHOOL.

87

thereby assume prevalent in the

I

that

there

is the

law

of

Heredity
the real

world.

If I

explain
number
are

in detail

various from

characteristics
ormolu the
;
;

which
a

separate
of

gold
in the

if I

propose

unfailing

signs of

genuine metal
that

which

lacking weight

counterfeit

if I say that true

gold

is not

affected

by
an

hydrochloric acid,
any
extent

it is of greater that

than
to

of its imitations, and

unknown
to any

it is malleable
; I am
a

other that

metal

all the time

as

taking
exists. of
on

it for granted

such

thing

real gold
a

If,after by

the
means

distinction of the

is made
tests

in

number

instances
to

argue

that

it is evident
am

that

proposed, I go true gold exists

in

because
a

it fulfils the tests, I

obviouslyarguing
methods which

circle.
In

just
has

the

same

way,

the
assume

Mr. that
as

Mill

rendered

famous there

beforehand
a

for
calls
and
care

every

consequent
an we

is

cause,

or,

he

it,
that the

invariable have

unconditional pursue in order and

to

antecedent,
with deliberate

methods between

only to proposed
We
arc

to

rccognixe the
consequent
in
out

connection
each for
"

antecedent

individual
"

case.

begin by looking

regularity
we

by
the of

which

are

universal

law

particularinstances as the test to recognise them as coming under and forming subordinate examples
we

in

it,and

when the with

have
we

collected
are

the

instances
to turn

and round

formulated
and say

law,

expected
a

all the of

in

the

field

joy Thought
by

of
:

hardly-won discovery
how
us

See

the the

Law

of

Causation of
Nature

which

establishes
our

for

Uniformity

is proved

universal

experience!

"8

THE

FOUNDATIONS

OF

LOGIC

that quite forgetting

to
to

the

treasure

which

we

profess
which is
we

have

come

upon all

thus

unexpectedly
is but
one

and

enrich

future

ages, and

which

ourselves

had

brought

hidden
we

there, taken
now

out

of the very to lay it up

storehouse in

where

are

proposing

triumph. The thus underlies the First fallacy which Principle of the so-called Experimental Philosophy vitiates the whole naturally system from first to last.
There is
not
a corner

of

the

house

that
rest

these with and

can philosophers have built up where we safety. They have put together their

bricks

rubble
structure

into

solid

mass

on

which
basis

the
on

super

rests, but the foundation

and

what

is the
the

which
is the

reposes

of

edifice ? the

It

workmanship
bricks
dation.
cannot

which
But remain

is

excellency of supposed to provide a

well
in
a

the

selected
foun

secure

however

chosen

the

bricks, they

suspended
themselves
this is the

mid-air.
basis
out

They

cannot
own

develope for activity. Yet

Given
create

of their

aim

of the
and
a

experimentalist.
be
engages
to

his
or

methods

of

inquiry
therefrom
time all

manufacture

First

Principle
and

which the

shall be at the

same

the foundation

philosophicalinquiry. It was not to be expected that the other Primary of Thought underlie all processes which Axioms fare any better of the Experi would at the hands of Causation. than the Law mentalists Just as this takes it which is to be built up by a process Law of Contradiction is arrived for granted, so the Law which in just the same at by another process way

culminating-pointof

THE

FOUNDATIONS

UP

LOGIC.

light expels darkness, such a has declaration force if it may be equally true no that lightdoes not dispeldarkness. Unless contra exclude dictions that statement one another, no
my

experience

that

we

make

is of the every

any Law

value

whatever. Contradiction
statement
to

As

we

have

seen

above,
in

of

is made

already

implied
rational

possible

being, and
of certain

therefore

establish
are

by any its validity

to

by

means

propositions we

derive

obvious than experience is a still more fallacy that by which the Empirical Philosopher seeks to arrive at the Law of Causation and the Uniformity

from

of Nature.
We

shall of of

have

to

recur we

to

the
come

Experimentalist
to

Theory
nature

Axioms Induction.
a

when
We words

discuss
our

the

will close
on

present
Universal

chapter
Axiom
akin
to

with
set

few

another
doctrines

up

by

one

whose
Mill. under

are

closely
three

those Bain

of Mr.
includes

Mr.

one

head

the

Principlesof Identity,Contradiction, and Excluded Middle. They are all of them Principlesof Con inadequate expressions of the general law sistency," that is in our reasoning as well as in our speech,
"

that be

"What
affirmed

is affirmed

in

one

form

of words

shall

principle,he says, with and truth, requires no special instinct says for it; it is guaranteed by the broad to account he instinct of mental self-preservation.But when
in another."
goes
nature
on

This

to

add

that

"it

has

no

foundation could
go
on

in the
as

things,and that if we by maintaining an opinion in

of

well

one

form

of

words,

PRINCIPLE

OF

CONSISTENCY.

while

denying
in
our

it

in

another,

there constitution

appears

to

be

nothing
secure us

mental

that

would he

against
a

contradicting
more

ourselves,"
and open

ex

hibits the Mill.

in

still

undisguised
underlies of and the

form,
of
Mr.

scepticism
If the

which Axioms

system
are

Consistency
not

Axioms

of

Consistency
merely
and
not

alone,

of

Truth,
of Truth

if

they
own

express

the

subjective
external the

tendencies

our

minds,
alto such that

any

reality,

disappears
is based
on

gether
foundations the

from

Philosophy
these. which both
We

which have

as

already

seen

new

basis in the

philosophers
of
Nature's

attempt
laws the
ascer

to

substitute tained

Uniformity
own

by

our

experience,
way

involves the The the

fallacy

of
which

assuming
is

by finally

of

proof
at.

very

conclusion of enunciated method Con

arrived

Principle
system

sistency by
Mr.

adds

nothing
save a

new

to

Mill,
dust

novel the

and

plausible
the unwary.

of

throwing

into

eyes

of

CHAPTER
THE

VI.
OF

THREE

OPERATIONS

THOUGHT.

I.

SIMPLE

APPREHENSION.

Recapitulation The three operations of Thought Simple Apprehension, Judgment, Reasoning Three of Logic Parts Terms, Propositions, Syllogisms The Simple Apprehension steps Abstraction leading to it" Previous Abstraction processes
"

"

"

"

"

"

"

"

and
"

Simple Apprehension"
Immaterial contrasted" ideal Phantasm

The

Concept
and
not

an

Intellectual Phantasm

image
and

The

Concept"

Concept
tion
"

Concept
and of

Concept
"

pictured in the imagina spiritual Concept accompanied by

"

Phantasm Phantasms Common

Points
"

difference individual

between character of Universal

the
"

two

"

Common

Their

Their idea.

origin

"

Phantasm

counterfeit

WE

must

recapitulate the
we

substance

of

our

last two

chapters before laying

Law basis down

proceed.
Law
"

We

commenced and
as

by
the the

the

of

Contradiction
we

of

Identity. The

latter

described

positive reasoning and the parent of all these a priori Propositions. From Primary Laws fundamental another the to Law, we passed on Law of Causation, defining carefullywhat sort of a
cause

of all

is alluded Fourth
of law

to

in it.

Last

of all

we

laid down Prin

the

the

this of

compact

family of First
Middle from the

ciples,the
Law Law

Excluded

which, like

of Causation, of

proceeds immediately
We then
examined

the
First

Identity.

SIMPLE

APPREHENSION.

93

Principle,which
School propose
we

Mr.
to

Mill

and for

the the

.Experimental
Laws above he

substitute in the

stated, and
establishes

detected

process

by
it

which

it,the
very

unfortunate

fallacy of assuming professes to

must
now

the implicitly prove.

propositionwhich
our

Having
commence

thus the

laid

foundations,
up

we

We

have

building already seen

that

which
and

is concerned

the of

Laws
our

Logical Edifice that Logic is a science with the operations of Thought, In the begin regulate them.
our

of

ascertained that inquiry,1 we every exercise of thought, properly so-called, consists in have to now apprehending, judging, reasoning. We examine of these into the nature three operations, since with them, and them alone, is Logic concerned. The First of these operations of Thought is called Simple Apprehension, or Conception (vorj"ii).

ning

The

Second

is called

Judgment, Reasoning, or

or

Enunciation

The Discourse
I.

Third

is called

Deduction,

or

("rv\\oyIO-JJLOS).

SimpleApprehensionis that operation of Thought by which the object presented to us is perceived by the intellectual faculty. It is called Apprehension, because of it the to mind, so by means speak, apprehends or takes to itself the object ; and Simple it is a mere Apprehension, because grasping of the statement object without being recorded any mental of Conception, respecting it. It also bears the name
because
the

mind, while
1

it
P.

apprehends

the

external

$"

94

SIMPLE

APPREHENSION.

object, at
itself the far
as

the

same

time

conceives

or

begets
to

within
so

object as
an

something
is

internal

in itself,

it is

object of Thought.1
that
or

2.

Judgment
the

operation diversity of
which
one

of
two

Thought objects

by
of

which

identity
denied the

Thought
is affirmed

is asserted,
or

by

object of Thought
It is called
a

of another.
assumes or

Judg objects

ment,

because

intellect

judicial atti
of the

tude, and
before
3.

lays down

the law,

judges

it.

Reasoning,

or

Deduction,

or

Inference, or

Argumentation (or as it is called in Old English Discourse), is that operation of Thought by which infers one the mind judgment from another, either immediately, judgment.
is
or

mediately, by
of the
as

means

of inasmuch human

third
as

It is called

Reasoning, faculty
it is
a

it

the

exercise

of

reason;

Deduction, inasmuch
one

drawing

(de ducere) of
as

judgment
1

from

another;
to

inasmuch Inference,

The

word

Conception is liable
has

mislead it in
a

the

unwary

student,
text-book.

if he especially Almost describe

account not
not
as a

first encountered schools

as

non-Catholic outside
their

all

modern

of

philosophy
its
name

the
own

Church false

conception
of the
one

deriving They
a

from
an

the

process.

make

it

act

of

the

imagination,
on

of of

of pure intellect, which

is

facultywhich
one

is

dependent

matter,

wholly immaterial.
discover in
number

Hence

they represent it

gathering together, a taking into

we a

attributes, which which,

notion
common

(con capere) of the various of different objects,and

to

according
which
nature.

to

them,

we

unite and have

together
to

form and

the

intellectual
their in

stands
We

for each shall of

all of them, refute

represents

this

error

presently

speaking of
of Universals
to

the
;

process
at

present

Simple Apprehension, and of the nature of the we simply direct the attention
the

reader

the

false

theory which

word

Conception is quoted

to

OPERATIONS

OF

THOUGHT.

95

it

brings
;

in

a (infert) judgment as

not

made
a

before
and

Discourse, inasmuch
of
our

it is

explicitly running hither

to

thither
at

minds

(dis currere) in order

of has it
or

arrive

truth. of these

Each
over
a

operations
or

Thought
which
end

more

certain the it

result

product
is the of which

engenders object
to

within which

mind.

This

tends, the child

it is the

intellec

tual parent.

the

Simple Apprehension (eWoT/o-^, evvoia) engenders is so called idea or as concept (eWo^/za) which

likeness, or aspect, or appearance being the mental (ISea)of the external object which Thought conceives
within the mind.

Judgment
or

(aTrocpavo-is) engenders (^0709

its
name

the

judgment

declaration derives

which
or

or aTrofyava-is) dTrotyavrtKos, from its being the declaration

of setting-forth
two

the

agreement

or

disagreement
the

between

objects of Thought.
conclusion
names

Siavoia) engenders Reasoning (TO Xcxytfecr"u,

argument
or

or (auXXoy "07109),

(crv/jLTrepac/jia
which
express

the inference, fact that it

various

of

the

reckons which from

point, that it two judgments from together(avv Xoiy/ferai) infers the conclusion it deduces or following
proves (arguit) some
Science of

them. The

naturallydivides itself into three parts, corresponding with the three operations of Thought. of Simple Apprehension, or Con Part I. treats ception,or Thought, apprehending its object, thus engendering the concept idea. and or
Logic

therefore

SIMPLE

APPREHENSION.

Part

II. treats

Thought, engendering
Part III.

Judgment, or Enunciation, or thus pronouncing sentence, and

the

of

declaration.

Reasoning, or Deduction, or Inference, or Thought deducing one judg from ment another, or thus engendering the
treats

of

argument.
But
must

the task find

of

Logic

does

not

end

here.

Thought

Greek The expression in word's. very stands equivalent of Thought (\6yos) equally for the verbal expression of Thought. Without sort some would of Language Thought be, if not impossible,
at

least

impeded

and
us

embarrassed
to

to

degree which
should lack
a

it is difficult for
most

estimate.
and

We

valuable should each

not

instrument be
or

We
to

able to
to

of Thought. auxiliary communicate our thoughts

our own

other,

correct

mental

ex

periences by and language

A
man

the
are

experience of others. mutually dependent on

is
sure

Thought
each other.
at

who
and

talks at random he
sure

also to is

think
on

random,
other the hand
same

who
to

thinks
random

at

random
his

the
In

be

in

ac Thought of language, and careful a companied by accuracy is necessary and of words to use promotive of a careful and exact habit of thought. concerned with Lan Logic, then, is indirectly

way

accuracy

of

language. is always

guage;

its

Thought
It has ference
to

subject-matter being the operations of find their expression in language. which

with

deal

Language just so
to
secure

far

as

its inter

is necessary

accuracy

of Thought,
as

and

to

prevent

any

misuse

of words

svmbols

of

SIMPLE

APPREHENSION.

contemplation of
the

the essential attributes

nature.

of
any

the

object;

perception of its substantial

We
are

not

concerned

with

elaborate

analysisof the process under Psychology than

ness'

since itself, under

this falls rather

; but

Logic

for

clear

sake,
of

we

must

steps by which
nature

the

brieflysummarize conceptis reached,

the and

various
inner

the

the

object apprehended object

to

by
to

the

human

intellect.

When
turn
our

any minds
comes

is

presented

us,

and

we

the consideration
us

the of it,

first

impression made the inner sense or imagination. There upon is painted upon the material facultyof the imagina of the object less distinct, tion an or image, more This attention. to which turn our we image is
before
either

thing that

is the sensible

transferred within

from
us,
or

our

external
is

senses

to

the

reproduced by the sensible memory recallingpast impressions. If any the word to me one pheasant," and I hear says he is saying, a vague what general picture of a
faculties else
"

pheasant, copied
seen,

from
to

the various
my

is present

pheasants I have imagination. So far, this

Animals share intellectual process. strictly call with man the faculty of imagination, and can from their memories a vague image of familiar up I scratch unperceived the floor of objects. When call out and to my terrier, Rat ! there room, my is
no
" "

rises up in little animal

foxhound

his

mind he
across

an

indistinct
to

picture
When
on

of the the

that

loves the
but

destroy.

comes

fresh scent

the
the

path
con-

which

Reynard

has

recentlytrodden,

PROCESS

OF

APPREHENSION.

99

fused

image

of

fox

comes

up

before this is
no

him,
is
a

and

suggests
of the

immediate interior the

sense;

pursuit.
for animals and

All

matter

there
;

intellectual
rest
on

activityin
mere

lower

they
cannot

the

sensible

impression

go

beyond
here.

it.
But The him
an

intellectual
faculties
a

being
his

does

not
nature

stop

higher
to

of

rational
He

compel
his intel expresses, caused under the

proceed

step further.
sensible

directs and

lectual

faculties to the

image

in his intellectual

the object which faculty,

an

the
an

image,
assumes

but

now

in

immaterial
character is the

way

and

universal

aspect.
in the

This

which result

object
nature

intellect

of the

of the intellect.
modum has
to

secundum recipitur Quicquidrecipitur, take into any faculty Whatever we recipientis. accommodate

itself to
is received

the

nature

of

that
must
mean

faculty.
be

Whatever
as

by

the

intellect I

beyond the of sense, outer inner, to portray, something or power the imagination ; some be painted on which cannot belongs to the immaterial, not the thing which I mean world. material by universal something
which the
not

and supra-sensible something which by supra-sensible

received

universal. it is

intellect
to

recognizes
or

ing
which claim

this

that

indefinite

number the
same

of other
same

capable of belong object only, but to an objects,actual or possible,

as

have
to

inner

nature,

and The

therefore individual
to
sense

the

representation or
and
to
sense

general name. phantasm which

belongs
for the

alone, is exchanged

universal

or or idea, which representation, concept,

the intellect

loo

SIMPLE

APPREHENSION.

alone

can

form

for itself

by

the

first

operation of

Thought properly so called. We shall perhaps be able better to understand the process of Simple Apprehension if we distinguish
it from liable to which
1.
some

certain be

other

processes

which

either

are

mistaken

for it,or

are

preliminary steps
we

precede it. necessarily

Sensation, the
one or more

act

by

which

receive

on

of the

external

organs

of sense,

external object presented to impression of some it. The object producing the sensation may be alto gether outside of us, or it may be a part of our own hand or feel the beatings I see bodies, as when my

the

of my
2.
aware

pulse.
Consciousness, the
of the the
act

by which
made
upon

we our

become
senses

impressions
are

ind
a

realize

fact of their presence.

made upon We

thousand which of

impressions
escape

Every day our bodily

are

organs

our

notice.
been
our

not

conscious heard
never

their

having
of

made.
ears,

We but When

have have
our

the been

clock

strike

with the

conscious
are

sound.

mental

powers
or

absorbed
some

occupation,
any

by
may

by some interesting strong excitement, almost

unnoticed.
men

sensation of

pass

In

the

mad

excitement serious

the
and

battlefield
are

often of the

receive

wounds

not

aware

fact till

long afterwards.
3. Attention, by which

the

faculties

are

directed

object, or set of objects, to the specially to one partialor complete exclusion of all others. The dog following the fox has his attention directed almost

PREVIOUS

PROCESSES.

101

the fox to exclusively forget all else. The tion absorbed by the this
reason

he

is

pursuing
in battle with the

and has

seems

tc

soldier
contest

his atten for

foe, and
the inner

his wound

passes

unobserved.
act

4.

Sensible external has

the perception,
senses are

by
to

which
an

data
sense

of the which

referred of

the

power

together,and
different
sense;

writing in one impressions made

it obtains

perceiving, comparing common image, all the

on

the
name

various of the

organs "common

of

whence

the

sense"

communis). (sensus
sort
a

Sensible

perception always
and draws memory.

implies some A dog sees

tion sion
organs
to

of

consciousness
sugar
;

piece of
he

this

his atten

it and

becomes in

conscious
a

of the

impres
his if not

(using the word of sight. Next

as

wide smells

sense)

upon

he

it, and

applieshis tongue its taste. He then compares to it to discover together the various impressions of sight, smell, and taste, and the resulting of sensible perception, act by an
to

satisfied perfectly

its nature,

image
5.
reason

is that

of

piece of

sugar

good
recalls
us

for food. the

Memory
of the which

(sensible), which
presence

past
sensa

by

within

of certain

formerly experi enced. A certain perfume recalls most vividlysome of our scene past lives ; a familiar melody stirs emotions the fresh air long dormant morning ; of some brings with it the remembrance exploit of of animals is boyhood or of youth. The memory exclusively a sensible sen dependent on memory
sation.
f".

tions

recall

other

sensations

Imagination,

which

paints

upon

the

innei

toa

SIMPLE

APPREHENSION.

sense

some

which which

picture, the already exist within

scattered
us.

materials is the

of

It

faculty
of the

past.
and
to

reproduces the sensible It is able, however, to

arrange

impressions
group

them

afresh,

them

In differently.

this it differs

from

the

(sensible) memory
of the past the have

which

reproduces the

impressions
made.

In dreams
we

just as they were originally active. imagination is specially

included
to

Hitherto
processes
common
come

in

our

list various of We
to
sense

which
to
man

belong
and

the

faculties animals.
man

the

lower
to

now

to

those of

which

belong

alone,

the have

processes

said of

that

called. We so Thought strictly the first and simplest of these

is that

Simple Apprehension or Conception. But there which is not is a preliminary process really dis tinguishablefrom Simple Apprehension, and differs only
to
us.

in

the

aspect

under

which

it presents

itself

We of of
our

have

spoken
on

of Attention
one

as

concentrating
the exclusion

faculties The

some

object to

concentrate we object on which be an object having an independent existence, may be some of the it may out or quality or qualities is qualitiesbelonging to something which many

others.

present

to

our

minds.

In

this

latter
as some

sense

it is

inasmuch often called Abstraction,

it is the draw in qualities

abstract fix my

ing
order

away
to

of

our

attention others.

from
I

fix it upon

may

frorr mina

the
upon and

whiteness

of

piece
I may

of sugar
abstract

and

its sweetness.
sweetness

from
my

whiteness
on

and

concentrate

attention

ABSTRACTION

103

its and

I crystallization.
sweetness

may

abstract

from

whiteness

and

and crystallization

mentally con
meaning
it. may
In
or

template its wholesomeness

But includes Abstraction all there there has and
a

for little children. further

which
every may

this,
are

goes

object
not

certain any

beyond which qualities

substantial
are

be

without

difference

being
and be

made

in its character.
one

There would be
or

others, the
A
or

absence

of
cause

any

of which
cease

destroy
it is.

its nature
man

it to
or

to

what

may

tall
or a

short,
But

young
or

old, handsome
none

ugly, black
less is he other
cannot

white, virtuous
man.

vicious, but
be

the

he

cannot

deprived
to

of certain
He

without qualities be either of other rational that

ceasing
or

be

man.

irrational,livingor
which
we

dead,
or

pos

sessed
some

form

call

human,

of

If he is not entirely different one. form, he ceases rational, living, possessed of human these latter qualities because to be a man altogether,
are

part of his
make him

nature to

as

man,

constitute

his essence,

and

be

what in

he this

is,a

man. sense

Now,

Abstraction

further
on

is

the

concentration
to

of

the

intellect

these

latter

qualities

the exclusion mind

of

the

former.
to

It is the withdrawal
to

of the what

from

what

is accidental

fix it upon

a give the word slightly varying etymological meaning, it is the intellectual I draw forth (abstrahere)from the indi act by which vidual object that determinate portion of its nature

is essential, or,

which
essence,

is essential while
I

to

it and

is said
rest.

to

constitute

its

neglect

all the
same

In

this

sense

it is the

process

as

Simple

icu

SIMPLE

APPREHENSION.

regarded from a different point of view. It is called Apprehension inasmuch the as intellect apprehends or the nature of the grasps inasmuch the as object. It is called Abstraction Apprehension
nature

is abstracted
nature

or

drawn
as

out

of

the be the

whose

it

is, and
drawn

it cannot

object grasped object,

until the intellect has Abstraction

to

it forth from

is,at least in thought, a previous process

to

Simple Apprehension. Thus, when a horse is presented

me

me,

A bstracthe

tion enables of

to withdraw
or

my

mind

from

fact

his

being
or

race-horse
slow my

grey,
to

fast

trotter,
attention

or dray-horse, chestnut healthy or diseased, and on

concentrate
as a

that which
out

belongs
that
may
nature
we

to him

horse,and
his
In
gaze

thus
essence

to

draw and

of him

which
call I

constitutes
his
my

which
rational

equinity.
mental
makes his him

virtue
on

of my that
he

fix

which

what

mysterious entity or is, I grasp

apprehend
that
all hidden his

equinity, I perceive intellectually is the substratum of something which

root

qualities,the
which

whence
him
out
as

the
a

varying
horse of
all

characteristics
take

mark It is in

their

origin.

the

assertion

this

the power of drawing faculty of Abstraction, as is really there out of the object something which that draws it forth,that of the mind independently consists
and

the

whole

distinction modern

between

scholastic

philosophy. It is in the not definition of Simple Apprehension as merely of the object certain qualities the grasping into one selected by the mind, but the grasping by the mind
the so-called

106

SIMPLE

APPREHENSION.

region
This

of

sense

to

the

region

of

intellect and

of

Thought properly so
distinction sensible

called.
between

the

two

images

"

the

image painted on the imagination and the supra-sensibleimage dwelling in the intellect is of the greatest importance. The sensible image must form a con cannot precede the supra-sensible ; we
"

cept of any

object unless there has been previously imprinted on the imagination a material impression of that object. The sensible image must, moreover, exist side by side with the supra-sensible: the one on the imagination, the other in the intellect ; and as long as I am thinking of the intellectual concept, the be present to my material phantasm must imagina
tion. This
; in

is the

result

of the

union

of

soul

and

body
my

virtue
to

is present

of my animal the phantasm nature and the material in virtue of faculty, the When

rational

nature

concept
I think

is present of
a

to

the

intellectual intellect

faculty.

trianglemy

is above contemplates something which ideal triangleif you the idea of triangle, an sense, time the same at like, and imagination has my present before it the material pictureof a triangle. intellectual image is something clear, precise, The

exact,

sharply

marked

without

any

defects

or

deficiencies.
vague,

number
ness

image is something indistinct, indefinite, and applicable to a of its indistinct of individuals only by reason
The material indefiniteness. The intellectual

and

concept
be.
to

I form I know

of

triangle is
I
mean

as

what define

in
set

precise as anything can every detail belonging

forth

it.

can

it and

all its characteristics

CONCEPT

ANt)

PHANTASM.

The picture of by one with perfectcorrectness. triangle present to my imagination is the reverse It of all this, it is dim, imperfect, undetermined. is neither isosceles,rectangular, or scalene, but a
one
" "

sort to

of

attempt
it

to

combine

all these.

If in

order

give

definiteness, I picture not

have

only triangle,
to

but

isosceles

whether

angle,a
introduce

triangle,still I the angle at the vertex right angle, or an acute

a

determine
an

shall be

obtuse if I

angle.
decide
on

Even

fresh

limitation

and

the acute still

a

much not angle I am quite indeterminate, certain length,it must and

some

better for the

off,my
sides in
a

picture is
must

be

of

be drawn be chosen I

certain

position,
But be
cannot

colour
many

must

for the

sides.
I

however

limitations

introduce,

thrown until I have perfectly determinate away shred of generality belonging to altogether every the triangle and satisfied with indi some one am vidual triangle with individual characteristics belong ing to itself and to no other trianglein the world. is another there But important distinction between the immaterial the material

concept

in

the

intellectual

facultyand faculty. If
it is vague

phantasm
the

in the

imaginative
find that
a

I examine and

latter I not that

only

but indistinct,

it is not

true

representation of

object; it is not what it pro fesses to be. The which is present picture of triangle in my imagination is not, strictly speaking,a triangle the sides of a triangle are For at all. lines, i.e., in the they have length but not breadth, whereas picture of a triangle as imagined, or actuallydrawn,
the the
sides
are

not

lines at

all,but good thick bars

of

toft

SIMPLE

APPREHENSION.

appreciable breadth. be invisible, not only

most

If
to

they
the

were

lines
eye,

they
but

would
to

naked

the

still, they are powerful microscope. Worse bars with not even rough straight ; they are wavy jagged edges. They have no sort of pretence to be called straightlines,nor has the so-called triangle
any real claim Not process
so

to

the

name.

the

intellectual

concept

formed

The Simple Apprehension. it is adopted by purged of its materiality when the immaterial faculty ; it is also purged of all its

of

by the image is

indefiniteness

and

incorrectness.

It

is

an

ideal

worthy of the noble faculty that It is not and has conceived a brought it forth. with all the imperfec clumsy attempt at a triangle, the tions which cling to the iigure depicted on triangle ;
drawn wood on or on imagination, or ; paper the which for practical purposes serves purpose lines for its sides, of a triangle,but has true no defective in every portion of it. and is crooked and It is a true, perfect,genuine triangle, dwelling in the spiritual sphere, the sphere of what philosophy calls noumena, things capable of being intellectually discerned, as opposed to phenomena or mere appear I argue about the properties of a When ances. this ideal trianglethat I argue, it is about triangle, else nothing that I said would be strictly I true. about something which in point of fact, has argue nothing corresponding to it in the world of pheno only feeble attempts to imitate its inimitable mena, I assert that an equilateral perfections. When angles equal, I do triangle has all its sides and

it is

CONCEPT

AND

PHANTASM

log

not

assert

this
E

in

reality of
or

the

triangle ABC,
I have

or ever

the
seen

triangleD
with my

F,

any

triangle that
but of
an

bodily eyes,
is not with the When
do

ideal world

equilateral
of
sense,

which triangle, but world circle has which that is realized of

are

realized

in the

utmost

precision in
that the that
any

the
a

intellect. all been

I
not

say
mean

radii of

equal, I
drawn

circle in

ever

by
were

the

most
ever

skilful limner

any

two

radii

in the

ideal that
in
or

circle the
on

the

ideal

exactly equal, but radii are actually

to

equal,and
the the

attempts
paper,
or

draw

circle

on

blackboard,
so-called
as

portion
and the It his This
a

the

imagination, radii are approximately equal, in pro ideal circle, circle approximates to an
on

the

radii
true

to

the the

ideal

radii

of that

ideal

circle
pursue

is

that

geometrician
of
the

cannot to

researches is the

without
consequence

palpable symbols
our

aid

him.

intellect of the
and

inhabiting
We

tenement

formed think
at

of
an

dust

earth.

cannot

of
same can

ideal time

circle

its

properties
fashion the eye.

without
a

the

imagining

in vague
to

circle is

which

b'e rendered
this that the

visible

It
soon

because

of

intellectual intellect

activityso
wearies,
which few

fatigues.
the material side
can means

It is not

which

but works
men

faculty
side
out

of the the

imagination

by
of
a

with
a

intellect.

Very
the

argue

single proposition of only

a

Euclid

by

triangle present
therefore
sense,

to

imagi
their

nation,

and
to

they
the the
own

draw

picture which
to
save

appeals
the mind

external

in order

imagination
its

impossible task of keeping before imaginary triangle. But whether

XXO

SIMPLE

APPREHENSION.

the

symbol
we

be

drawn remember

on

paper

or

on

the

imagina
the

tion,

must

that
but

it is not

about

symbol image
present
modern mark

that in the
to

we

argue,

about

the

immaterial

the faculty,

corresponding ideal triangle

aberrations
must

the intellect
we

Before

discuss

"

the
this

strange
the two

of

philosophy on
the contrast form of every

subjectv\e
which

between

different
we

clearly images
or

that

we

object of

speak

think.
i.

There
in It

is the the

immaterial intellectual,

present
ideal. world of

intellectual the
is

belongs to
sense.

faculty. It is world, spiritual

in
man

image, something
not

to the
as

It

engendered
created

the

consequence

of
an

his

being
God.

in after

the the

Divine likeness

image,
of the which hension which

with

intellect framed of
"

intellect he forms is
a

The

intellectual of

image

by

the
or

process

pattern
outside

Simple Appre exemplar of the object

him and

corresponds time fallinginfinitely short of (though at the same its perfection)to the pattern' or exemplar present the external Mind when to the Divine object was
created.
Man
can

exists

of

idealize because
within

he is

rational
recog

being nizing
to

and the

possesses

him

this
as

giftof
we

ideal
in

of the

object,such
of God.
are

conceive
cannot

be

present
because

the mind

Brutes and

idealize possess
can

they
to

irrational
Their

do

not

this likeness

God.

mental

faculties

apprehend only sensible phenomena as such ; they think of anything except so far as it can be cannot depicted on the imagination and is palpable to sense.

CONCEPT

AND

PHANTASM.

in

2.

There

is,
in

moreover,

the

sensible, material

image present
nation. lectual soul. without

facultyof the imagi This the intel necessarily accompanies image so long as the body is united to the think of We cannot object whatever any the material picture of it or something
it

the

material

resembling picture is
I
to
as

being present
vivid individual it is

to

the

fancy.
very

This when

sometimes
some

and

distinct, as

think
me.

of

object

familiar

Sometimes
I

when
a

think of the

to

number
to

utterlyfaint and indistinct, of something which is applicable varying external objects. In pro
and

portion
is the

number and

varietyof
I

faintness them.

indistinctness

representing
my
ways
on

When

recall

objects of the image to my thoughts

these

favourite
and my

little clever

Skye
tricks

terrier have the before the

grateful memory,
if I
saw or

winning imprinted her image picture is clear and begging for the nimble rat just freed
me

Die, whose

vivid, as

her

dainty morsel,
from
the

chasing
over

the silver

cage,

the

meadows

that
But

border

on

Isis

or

the
in

of

Skye
;

terriers other of
me.

sluggishCam. general, the

terriers, the
much If I
as a

if I think becomes
and up

image
Die,

blurred

Skye
the

associates
come

predecessors

beloved

vaguely before
my

enlarge

the

circle

and

fix

mind
more

on

terriers

class, the

image
have

becomes Dinclaim

still
mont to to

indistinct.

Scotch

terriers, Dandy
terriers all
an a

black-and-tan terriers,
be

represented.

The

picture

makes

attempt
can

comprise them all : but as only do so by abandoning

it is

individual,it
of

its clearness

detail

SIMPLE

APl'hEllENSION.

altogether. dogs
in

If I go

still further

afield

and
a

think
still more

of

confused

general,the picture lapses into and this again indefiniteness,

when but the

increases
no

hundredfold

longer dog, general

material

subject of my thought is animal. In fact, we may say

vividness
an

in the

that

the

and

brightness of
inverse
ratio
to

image varies in simplicityof the concept.

But and

the

all this time

marked.

the

concept has
The

remained

clear of

sharply
is
no

intellectual than the rather

image
more

animal

less

distinct

intellectual
so,

image
inasmuch

of

Skye
as
we

terrier, perhaps
can

define

in but

precise
it is and

terms
so

what
easy

constitutes
to

animal

nature,
are a

not

expound

what of
nature

the

special

essential

characteristics

peculiar other dogc.

But whether be

his

constitute Skye terrier and as distinguished from that of

the
or

nation
or

distinct dim

picture painted on indistinct,vivid

as

the and

imagi
life-like

so

faint and
it be
a a

to

be

whether
or

real likeness of

scarcelyperceptible ; the object of thought, give always

courage,
a

merely

feeble
to

attempt

to

concrete

and

sensible form

that which of
some

is abstract is

and

spiritual,
When
sort

still an
I think

image
of

sort

there.
some

dim
a

truth,or or honesty, sort image having some

distant

of

of relation

(generally
on

very my

one)

to

the

abstract

qualitypresent
fail
when
or

to

intellect

material of
In

paints just as faculty,

terriers
case

itself

without

the

certainlyas
steamers,
resemblance

I think balloons.

Skye
the

or

ocean

former

the

of the

image

ri4

SIMPLE

APPREHENSION.

introduced has

the

so-called
door

of Thought, Relativity
upon
a

and

opened
The

the
and

boundless

vista

of

contradiction

scepticism.
contrast

points
may first is The

of
be

between
up under

concept
the

and

phantasm
i.

summed

five heads.

difference that the

between

concept and
into intel

the the

phantasm

concept is

received

intellect, by the

or process of conception

the intellect is a spiritual and as perception, and immaterial faculty,removed altogether above and immaterial the concept too is a spiritual sense, and supra-sensible image. The phantasm, on the other hand, is received into the imagination or fancy by the process of sensible perception, and the fancy or imagination as sensible the phantasm too is a material and faculty,
lectual

is material
2.

and

sensible.
a

The

intellect is, moreover,

;

of perceiving faculty
is to
see

universals versal

its

special function

the

uni

particular. It does not recognize and the individual object directly immediately as an nature a individual,but only so far as it possesses the concept capable of being multiplied. Hence is something universal, something which is found not
under in
one

the

individual

alone, but

in

many,

existing or at least possible. The individuals. of perceiving the other hand, is a faculty All its picturesare picturesof individual objectsas the phantasm is also something indi such. Hence It is a picture vidual and limited to the individual. of existing of the individual object,or of a number individuals whose pointsof distinction are -ignore^

really on imagination,

either

CONCEPT

AND

PHANTASM.

1x3

in order
same

that

they

may

be

depicted
is

in

one

and

the

individual 3. The

image.
common

concept, which

to

number

objects of thought, is something precise,definite, distinct, capable of analysis. The phantasm which of objects of thought is some represents a number thing vague, indefinite,indistinct,incapable of exact
of

analysis. analyze or
concept
or

It

fcdes

away I
can

before

my

attempt
and define

to

define idea

it.
of

explain

my
to

triangle,but

if I

attempt

definite picture of triangle, explain and render my with I find myself confronted triangles of all sorts and dancing about before the eyes of descriptions, obtuse right-angled,some imagination, some my equilateral,soim acute-angled, some angled, some

isosceles,some
none

scalene.

The

picture is
and

all and

yet
and
un

of

these, utterly dim

in virtue of the The

uncertain,
dimness of
and

existing only certainty.

this

its class the

more

larger
fainter
at

objects

which
has
tc

picture painted
the until

on

imagination
indistinct
away
common

represent, become,

and

does

it

length
I
can man

it fades form
a

into

space

altogether.
outline has which
can
a

Thus of

general

picture
sort

which,
But
at
a

of
to

reality.
represent
be called
is

my
once

it is, sketchy as picture of animal,

men

is

and

brutes,
for
the
in

scarcely living thing,

members
a common

picture
to

at

all, while

which

combine

together
creation

of

the

animal

and
cannot

vegetable produce
with

picture, I
at

any

respect

able
4.

phantasm
The

all.
not

concept is

interfered

by

minute-

H6

SIMPLE

APPREHENSION.

ness an

of detail.

can

form of
a an

as

distinct and eicosahedron

accurate
or

intellectual concept
as

dode

cahedron

can

of
with

triangle or
no

figure.
the

can

argue

number

of degrees

in

quadrilateral about greater difficulty the angles of the more

other I
can an

complicated figuresor about any tinguishingcharacteristics,than

number

of their dis about the

of

degrees
a

in the
But

angles
the

of

equilateral
becomes

triangle or

square.

phantasm

it becomes difficult as more com gradually more until at last it becomes a thing impossible. plicated, with any sort of I cannot imagine a dodecahedron I can exactness. picture it only in the vaguest I cannot distinguishat all in my imagination way. eicosahedron between an (or figure of twenty sides) and
a an

eicosimiahedron of

(or whatever
sides
may

the

name

for
I

figure

twenty-one

be).
much
or

When

attempt
number
ten

to

imagine

sides, say thousand sides, I

difference
seen

of

figure with a muriahedron, a

cannot

larger figure of
me see

for the
a

life of

any

between
on

it and
an

unless circle,

indeed

I have

it drawn

enormous
man.

scale.1
No

5. The
can

concept is peculiar to
any

brutes of the

form
;

ideas

in

the

true

meaning

word

tion the them such

1

rise above the world of sensa they cannot and no appreciation of the spiritual ; they have enable can immaterial, and no faculties which

apprehend faculties,they
to
It may
"

them. would
the

If
in

they possessed
some

any

way
the

or

other

be well

to

remind

reader

that

"symbolic
of their

con

ceptions of Mr. Herbert Spencer are, in spite nothing else than pictureson the imagination

name,

COMMON

PJTANTASMS.

II?

manifest
ever

them,
any

whereas

they

show
a

no

trace

what of

of

knowledge
and

beyond
individual
of

knowledge

phenomena
grasp have
under
cannot
no

of

material

things.

anything
power

beyond
whatever

They cannot objects. They

perceiving the universal the idealise, they particular. They cannot attain to any knowledge of the universal. phantasm, on
brutes. A
some

The
men

the

other
can

hand, is
form
a

common

to

and

dog

very whom

vivid
it is from

mental familiar.

picture of
When,
her
"

individual, with
my sister's

during
would the

absence
"

home,
in
run

I said to

little toy terrier

Madge,
her and

\Vhere
look finallv

is Alice ? my

Madge

prick

up

ears,

face, search

drawing-room,
in

upstairs to my sister's room When, by a lengthened series

beneath
mistress the the
was

anxious

quest.

of protracted sniffs
that back scrap her
to

door,
not

she

had

discovered would
on a come

there, she

lie down drawing-room and provided for her with carpet

as

the

of

half

petulant air,
to
me

much

as

to

"

say who

Why
know

do

you

recall

the

;mage
at

of
?

one
"

you
one

perfectlywell
is familiar

is not
the

home
of of

Every
has

who

with

ways
sorts

dogs

noticed
seem

how
to

phantasms

during sleep all through their pass expressions

phantasms
we

minds,

often

evolving
or

outward

of

sur

prise or
But

joy

fear.

animals

have

also

certain

which,
call

individual
reason

though they always

their able of
this
to
or

are,

of is

indefiniteness form that

a

A
not

dog

sort

only

rat,

but

by common phantasms. of mental picture, of rat in general.

may

ti8

SIMPLE

APPREHENSION.

Thr" into

very
a

word

rat

will

often

throw

little terrier
reason

perfect fever picture it summons

to

of excitement
up
;

by
a

of the

of the

many smell

rat

happily
at
once

pursued
recalls to in
a

the

death

of

fox

the

hounds,
there
is

not

this

or

that

fox, but

fox

general,and
vague

present in their imagination

phantasm
common

result of all their These animals

number

representing a sort of general experiences of individual foxes. oi phantasms arise in the mind
combined
made result
upon

from of

the

of the

successive

impressions
organs

imagination
A
a

through
has had different
or a

the

of
at

external

sense.

terrier of
more
"

experience
rats.

various
is
a

times

of

number

There

particular shape,
common

less

definite, which

is

to

all

rats

of motion, a particular colour, particular mode a particular scent, a particular sort of squeak, a noise caused particular by the gnawing of wood with their busy teeth. It is true that all of these slightly
vary
rats
or
or

with

each

individual of

rat.

There

are

no

two

in existence

shape, or
who
make wood.

gnaw

size, or colour, exactly the same who note, squeak in exactly the same noise when they exactly the same But these variations are slight very
the

compared with them often all,

keen Hence
senses

family likeness existingbetween to be perceived even too slight by the of the most acutelyperceptive animal.
has what
we

the

little terrier

may

call

just general impression of each of these particulars, have a generalimpression of the shape common as we the song common to all nightingales, to all swans, or
or

the

scent

common

to

all roses,

or

the

colour

COMMON

PHANTASMS.

Iig

common

A number of these ripe strawberries. imprinted on his inner general impressions remain arises in his imaginative memory and thence sense,
to

all

picture ready to be evoked, in accordance law of association, by any of them ; vague,

not

with

the

indeed,

and

particularpoints,but nevertheless definite enough to suggest the eager pursuit of his con one genitalfoe. If he does not distinguish between
precise
rat

in

and

another, but

has

common

picture which,
of of
a

individual
vagueness

though it is,will, on
of detail,
follow the

account

certain he
not

does

but

directly suit example of

his in

any
man,

them,
when

directly exercising
those

intellectual
common

faculties, but
with all other

that

he

possesses

animals. Thus which

I go

into

the
my

cellar and

surprisea big rat,

The
once

scuttles

off at

approach.
is
a

next
more.

day My

repeat my
first and the

and visit, is to of

there

big rat

impression big
rat

the big rat of yesterday identify I formed to-day. The phantasm

still lingersin my imagination yesterday and which is equallyapplicableto his fellow of to-day, if fellow

it be and
no

not

the

same

individual. between into be the the the

can

perceive
A week

difference
I

whatever
go

two.

afterwards the
rat
"

again
It
may

cellar
same,
same

and

there

is be

again.
at

it may
to
me.

another
so

all events

he

is the

Just

in the mind still

an

of the

terrier,a picture arises which,

though
of and its

individual

vagueness,

picture, is, by reason equally applicable to all rats,

to

enables

him difference

overlook
one

the
rat

minute and

and

accidental

between

another

lao

SIMPLE

APPREHENSION.

in
upon

face

of

the
senses common

more a

striking features
similar

which

make

his
These

impression.
may be
to

phantasms
scenery

compared
every lover
are,

to

the
art,

pictures of
which,

familiar

of
are

individual

pictures though
of their

they
"

nevertheless suitable the

Coast
to
"

by
a

reason

generality equally
Sunset
on

dozen may
or

different
be

localities.

equally suggestive of the

America,
or or

coast

of France,

North

Norway,
Leeward

or

New

Zealand,
''Mountain
some

or

China,
Stream
in
scene

the

Islands.
may recall in

Early
alike

Summer"
to

well-known

the

dwellers
Moun

the

Alps
or

or

the

Pyrenees,
or

in the

the

Rocky

tains,
want

in

Wales,

amid

Himalayas.
the
our scene

The
repre
on

of
on

preciseness of
the
one

detail
and

in in

sented

hand the

memories
power

the

other, gives

to

individual like that

picture a

of

adaptation
individual
It whole is of has the in

something phantasm.
such

possessed

by the
the

by

an

apparent

generality that
the
error

modern been gross,

philosophy outside
misled
into

Catholic of mis

Church

the

fatal

taking
present

material,

individual
for

phantasm
intellectual,
the intellect.

the

imagination
concept
many
never

the
in

universal spiritual, There and

are,

present
excuses

it is true, who have

for the
to

mistake,

those

learnt

appreciate the
and

essential

distinction
between
to

between

the

material and

the

immaterial,

imagination
avoid

intellect, can

hardly

be

expected

it.

SIMPLE

APPREHENSION.

Beyond
further
to

these

subsidiaryprocesses
conducts
sense,
us

we

traced

process which

which

from the

the sensible material

to

that

is above
and

from

the immaterial,

which
are

calls into

exercise

those

higher
process

faculties
we

which

called

This peculiar to man. Abstraction,and we explained how with

we

it

is

really
as,

identical
when

Simple Apprehension,
the

inasmuch
abstract the

apprehend
nature

object, we
the it necessary

common

which also found

underlies

individual
to

attributes.
our

We

guard against the fatal fusingtogether the sensible image and idea, the phantasm and the concept.
on

be

error

of

con

the intellectual
We drew
out

four
1.
a

points of

common

of its its
own

the two. existingbetween The and only becomes phantasm is individual, phantasm by stripping off from it some distinguishingcharacteristics : the idea is o)
contrast
nature

universal. dwells in the

2.

The

cannot

phantasm pass beyond

it : the idea

imagination and dwells in the highei

and

region of
3. The and

the intellect.

phantasm

is

indistinct, the
4. The

something vague idea is precise and

obscure
and

clear

sharply defined.
of by our phantasm is estimated power cannot representing it. We represent in fancy sides. The idea has a figure of three hundred limits. A hundred sides no figure of three difficulties than a figureof three presents no more

sides.
5. The

phantasm

is
to

common

to

brutes

and

men,

the idea is confined

rational

beings.

MODERN

ERRORS

RESPECTING

IT.

123

We task of

now

pass

to

the the

uncongenial
aberration the

but

necessary

dealing with
on

of modern

philo
of

sophers
which

this

vital

question,

importance
This

scarcelypossibleto however, is, I believe,universal

the

it is

overrate.

error,

in the

Philosophy

of

Reformation.
I ask
my

readers

to

keep continuallybefore
between the
common

their

minds

the

essential

difference

phantasm of the imagination and the This is the abiding in the intellect.
keep
modern

abstract talisman

idea
to

the

Catholic

Philosopher
very
root

unharmed of
a

foe.

It is the If the the

touchstone is

by the philoso
tree

phical system.
be unsound and
at

corrupt, the
If
a

will

branches

rotten.

text-book

of

Logic

its outset shall

find

neglects
that it from

this

all-important
with end
and
a

distinction, we
disease render We modern
men

it is infected

which

will taint

beginning

to

it unsound
will take

in almost
as on our

every

chapter.
the

two

representativesof

teaching
who
in

W.

Hamilton the

states

Conception and Concepts two Sir most widely apart respects stand Mill. and The former John Stuart outside doctrine the generally held
"

Catholic siderable

Church

with We

great clearness
will his the

and

at

con

length.
abstract readers

give

for

brevity's sake
of

only
refer

an our more

of
to

exposition original
if

it, and
desire

will
to

they

obtain When
sented

detailed
a

knowledge
of first

of it. tells

number

objects (he

us)

are

pre

to

our

sight our
and

perception
But

of them
as
we

is

something
more

confused

imperfect.
and
compare

dwell

carefullyupon

them

their

qualities

t"4

SIMPLE

APPREHENSION.

together one
there others attention
are some

with

the

other,

we

find

that

in

them

dissimilar
we

qualitiesthat produce similar and impressions. By the faculty ol

minds
turn
on

fix

our

the former
our

of these, and from the

by

abstraction

we we we

away
to

thoughts
these

latter.

When

come

examine

similar

impressions
them
use as

find

ourselves

not

only
the

similar

the words

of Sir W.

compelled to regard but actuallythe same. To Hamilton, there are certain

that
are
"

qualities in
and

objects
we

determine
to
as

in

us

cognitive energies which

which
we

unable

distinguish
the
same."

therefore
in

consider
a

Having
similar them

observed

succession
one on

number

of these identified the indis

make

and qualities,

after
account

another of

with

each

other

tinguishablecharacter
upon
us,
we

of the
sum

impressions they
them them
up, in

at
a

length
whole,

bind
a

them of

together
notion
or

into

grasp

unity

thought, unite
several of the

the

simple

attributes
as

into the each

and

complex
all of the and all it

and concept,
or qualities

inasmuch

attributes which

belongs to
been
or

each

objects
that them up
our

in

it has notion

observed, concept which

or

follows
sums

this

common

is the
mind
as

common

notion
to

concept
and all oi
as

formed

in
same

belonging
a

each

these

objects.

It is

notion, inasmuch
note

it

minds, taking points to our the resembling qualities of

of

or

remarking

concept inasmuch

as

it is

together (con capere)of

1

the

objects: it is a a synthesis or grasping qualities.1

the
Logic, iii. 131,
whose

Cf. Sir W.
almost

Hamilton,
verbatim.

Lectures

on

words

w"

luote

MODERN

ERRORS

RESPECTING

IT.

taj

We

shall, however,

make

this process

more

intel

by a concrete ligible example. I am standing in a room in the Zoological Gardens, before a cage containing of objects large and small, well-lookingand a number
hideous, blue
watch indicate
one

and

grey

and

brown

and

black.

As

of

them, I observe
I

in it movements
to

which attribute

and life,

mentally apply

it the

I observe living. In a second indicating the possession of a and

similar similar
manner.

movements

endowment,

in

third the

and

fourth

in like

Though
that of the of the

the

life of
nor

first is not of the

identical with

with that

second,
yet the

that
as

second

third,

by us are indistinguish feel ourselves able, and we compelled to regard all these objects as sharing in a common qualityof life, I give the common and consequently to each of them
name

effects

observed

of

living.
seizes his

As

continue

to

watch

them,

one a

of them

neighbour by the

tail and

elicits

the possession cry of pain : this cry of pain indicates of what call sensibility v/e or feeling. A second
receives from
a

highly esteemed delicacy of joy, and this sign of and to a gives vent cry attribute to a similar gift of sensibility. pleasure we fourth show and A third a corresponding signs of be, and though we pleasure or pain as the case may is the feeling cannot say that the feeling of the one
some

visitor

of the them
we

others, yet
the
common

we

say my

that

it is

As

examination in
each

in all of help identifying and of each qualityof sensibility, sensitive or possessed of feeling. of the objects before me proceeds
cannot

I find

of them

other

which qualities,
;

I call

kairy, quadrumanous, imitative, "c.

each

of

the

126

SIMPLE

APPREHENSION.

females

suckles
of

its young, which

at

each
I

of them
the
name

has

certain

shape
GT

body to until pithecoid,

I
sum

give length,my
in

of

apelikt

detailed
one

observation

over,

up

its results in

complex notion, qualitiesI

common

which

comprises
I bind

itself all the the

have

observed.

together into

concept

monkey
rumanous,

the

various

attributes, living, sensitive, quad"c. I

imitative, hairy, mammal,

apprehend
on

these
them
common

various the
common

objects
name

as

bestow monkeys and in recognition of

their

characteristics. Such
is the process

of
to

conception according
writers.
have it J do
not

Simple Apprehension or a large class of modern

one can

think

that any

say

that

misrepresented their account seems plausibleenough. But

in

of it. At first sight

the between reader the who

has

borne and and

mind

the

distinction

sensible

material

phantasm
and

existing in
this

the

the abstract

immaterial

idea

imagination existingin the

under rather of the

will perceive how intellect,

the fatal defect of

of

theory labours confusing them together,or

idea in
to

ignoring the universal It common phantasm.

a

favour

tells

us

strip off
that
to

from
is

number

of

individual
as

phantasms

which

peculiarto
that

them

individuals, and
in all of them.

retain when

only
the

which
is

is similar

But

have, complete and these similar qualities mind, been by the transforming power of the human regarded as identical with each other, as not only
process similar but the
same,
"

when,

moreover,

these

identical
"

have been gathered together into qualities unity of thought/' into a concept comprising them

MODERN

ERRORS

RESPECTING

IT.

127

all,into

composite
as

whole whole
as

of which

they

are

the the

components

parts, this
much

has
the

its home various The

in

imagination just observed originally

ence

attributes

in the individuals. individual the

latter

only
the

differ

between

the

objectsand
has lost the and is

common

concept

is that

distinctive
reason

characteristics this dimness

on

of and

the

individuals

by

of

indistinctness

capable
an

of

being imper
of sup

fitted

to

all of them. is

It is not

independent
and

object of thought, it
fect ; it is not that their inner the

relative essentially of the which

even

essence

various

individuals,

something
cannot

is the think

substratum until it,

we

We qualities. it with
us as as

plement
terize think
to
some

the
an

various

it to

which qualities individual thing. We

must

charac
cannot

of

monkey

such, we

refer which

our we

concept
form
a

individual

monkeys

of

Hence the modern mind. theory of picture in our Human the Relativity of 0.11 Knowledge.1 Hence, too, the philosophicalscepticismto which

it

necessarily leads
If all

if

carried

out

to

its ultimate

conclusions. truth

knowledge
the face

is

relative, absolute
earth. What

disappears
But the
moment

from

of the

"

we

attempt

to

represent
to

to

ourselves

any

of

of these concepts, any objects, by themselves, and out

these vidual

abstract

generalities,as
any
concrete
once

absolute
or

of relation
at

indi
find

realities, their relative

to

nature

reappears;

for

we

it

altogether impossible
a

represent
to

any

of the

qualitiesexpressed
and
"

by
must

concept,
;

except
them under bundle in

as

attached

some

individual
in this,

determinate

object

and

their whole

generality consists
under for
some

that of the

though
class,

we
we

realize do it the

thought
of

singular
we

may

any.

Thus,
attributes

example,
from

cannot

actually
man,
as

represent
.an

contained

in the all that

concept
reduces

absolute

object, by

itself,and

apart

it from

ia?

SIMPLE

APPREHENSION.

is true

to

one

man

is not which
we

true

to

another.
to

The.

identityof
individuals

nature

attribute the is
common a

the various

comprised under and called by a common name of the human mind, and has
ness

concept,

of

nature

in

reality.
likeness
cannot

There

is
we

pleasant fiction no corresponding like the individuals as they exist in nothing but a certain apparent
consider between
as

which

real

because

we

distinguish
our

the

effects

cognitive energies by these similar qualities.1 Thought is no longer the but is a sensible property of the intellect,
upon

produced apparently
exclusive

picturing to
as

itself the
is
true

products
that
or a

of the

faculty, imagination
is
one :

well.

It between

certain

distinction
the

drawn

hand

and

Cognition on or Representation Imagination on

Thought

the other

individual cannot general cognition to an representation. We figurein imagination any object adequate to the general notion or to be here term imagined jnust be neither tall nor man ; for the man fat
nor

short, neither
woman,

lean, neither
nor

black

nor

white, neither
yet
none

man

nor

neither

young

old, but

all and

of these

at once.

The and

in the contradiction of our is thus shown relativity concepts absurdity of the opposite hypothesis." (Sir W. Hamilton's
on

Lectures
1

The of the

Logic, i. pp. 128, 129.) slovenly and inaccurate

most

use

of

the

word
error

Thought
in modern

is

one

fruitful have

sources

of fundamental
at

philosophy.
double
sense

We

noticed Sometimes

the

beginning of this volume

to

the

it bears.

it is limited
to

intellectual of well the the and the

as

know inner
to
mean

ledge, sometimes
faculties, sensible
acts

it is extended memory, rational

every

exercise
as

imagination, attention,
nature,
each

ths

peculiar to
between
is

and

this without
Hence

two

ings being distinguished from

confusion If
a

other. lower strict

mischievous of mankind.
term, in he

the nature

of the
the
an

brutes
sense

dog

capable of thought, in
has

of the

is

also from

capable of reasoning,and
that of

intellect

only differing

clegrea

I3T

SIMPLE

APPREHENSION.

to

which of

the
the

process

of

rather

formation
:

Simple Apprehension, 01 of complex ideas, takei,

we

place as
When the power
butes and

follows
any

object is presented to us, of fixingour minds of on some each To neglecting the rest.
we

have

its attri of these

selected sake:
we

attributes when
to
we

give
a as

name a

for convenience
certain

and

have

observed
name

number,
combines

give
which

the is

collection

which
name

them in

and all,

regarded
are

the

they

found

united.
us

object Subsequently
with this
another second

of the

another
set set

object presents
attributes.

itself before
or

of

Somehow
recalls those there
to

other

of attributes

observed

in the former
common

object,and
either
to

though

is

reallynothing
the
same name on

the

objects or
those
likeness

their

attributes, we
that

give
we

them

for convenience
on

sake

bestowed

previouslyobserved,
between
new

account

of

certain Each
bestowed

the

one

set

and

the

other.
name

of these
on so one

attributes

receives
to

the the

of those
second

belonging
collection former

former

set, and

the

receives

the

name

Between

given already to the two objectsthere

between this the and

the

collection.

is a likeness

of the likeness

attributes

by reason they severally

their common name. justifies The of other is repeated in the case same process have a number objects observed, until at length we of attributes of individual existing in a number for con individual name objects,bearing the same venience sake, and because they produce similar im but nevertheless having nothing whatever pressions,

comprise,

MODERN

ERRORS

RESPECTING

IT.

131

in

common

except

the called

name.

vidual
a

objects
of of the

are

by

the

Similarly the indi name same only as

necessary
not

species

abridged
human

notation

to

the

working
have Thus house
on a

mind, but
nature.

because

they
same

reallya
I

common

suppose

myself
of
and

as

before I in

in

the

in

the

Zoological
group
me

Gardens. attributes

fix my
one

mind of the

certain

objects before
"c., pithecoid,
attention.

banish

all the

rest.

Living,
my
name

sensitive,mammal,
are

quadrumanous,
the I attributes

hirsute, imitative,
which under
argue

absorb the about

These
I
am

stereotype
enabled
a

monkey. just as
had
none

thus existed

to

them,

if there

these

attributes accidental
In

corresponding entity which with endowed only, and was

characteristics
of of the of individual
me

of the

monkeys.
observe
upon
me a

another
group

objects before
which

another similar

attributes

makes

merated, and
In
a

I say and

impression to those already enu to myself, This, too, is a monkey.

fourth
case

third

the
a

same

process

is

repeated,
the
common

and

thus

form

class

of
which

monkeys,
possess

including under
attributes
to

it all those

objects
There that is form

aforesaid.
the individuals

nothing
the class

really
save

and the upholders of this theory only the name, the inconsistencyof the point oat with good reason which makes play Conceptualist doctrine concepts of Logic, though so prominent a part in the whole is all the time its upholders confess that a concept always something relative and has no existence apart

from

the

concrete

image

of which

it forms

part.

SIMPLE

APPREHENSION.

The
more

Nominalist consistent
than

theory is,it
that
more

the

same

time

it is

confessed, of Conceptualism, but at and immediately directly

must

be

and sceptical,

involves

under

its

specious
its

exterior It is

the

same

distinctive
that
we

fallacyas
have

rival.

important
the Mill tell from
means us

should

this

fallacyvery
the
root

clearly before
whole
and
us
an

us,

system
Bain and
are

lying as it does at and it from vitiating

the
to

of

first to last.

Nominalist
select
to
a

school

generally

that

we

group

of attributes

individual of
a common

and
name.

bind But

them what
?

together by is to guide
answer are

in

our we

selection
are

of the Attributes choose

those

Their

is that
9.

to

which which

similar make

in

number
us

of individuals,and the
same

therefore
But

upon

it that we cannot originof this of objects what we help recognizing in a number call common properties? I imagine that all would

impression. is similitude ? Why

what

is the

admit

that

it has

at

least If

some

foundation

in the

our impressions on which we are compelled to regard as similar, senses, in the objects, represent no corresponding qualities if the identity which we recognize is something

objects

themselves.

the

purely subjective, a
deceive

mere

delusion
any
can

by
no

which
in

we

ourselves, without
our senses soon

counterpart
be in
a

the

objects,then worthy, and scepticism.

desire
to

way

trust

we

arrive

at

self-contradictor,

Both

Nominalist

and

avoid

this conclusion concede of the

a

from

Conceptualist their premisses,

between
us

and
one

therefore
and

certain

likeness

another

objects around

which

is

MODERN

ERRORS

RESPECTING

IT.

i"

the
to
us

cause

of the be the
same.

impressions they
does

make

appearing
? To
a

to

But

in what

this the

likeness is

consist

scholastic
The

Logician
he the ideal

answer

simple enough.
inasmuch made is the
as

objects,
share
same

tells
same or

us, nature

are

alike
and
are

they
the

after
same

pattern.

There

of The common name form in all of them. of individuals because monkey is given to a number and all the common they have one form or nature of The idea (or concept} of monkey common monkey. is not number

picked
which

up

from

the

mere

observation It represents

of
some

of the class of has

a

monkeys.
true

thing
the

real and
an on so

counterpart

outside is not

human

mind,

intellectual the
to

entitywhich
This all the of
mark

simply dependent
stamps
and

individuals.
on

entity
instinct,
its own,

its stamp,
human
once

speak, by
common
a

individuals,
type whereas

the

mind

sort

rational
or

recognizes at
ever

the The

it exists. it into
not

intellect

claims

it

transfers

itself,abstracts
some

it from of their
power

the

indi

viduals,
and
to

by shaking off leaving others, but by

the which external
us no

attributes

the form

it possesses the material

extract

immaterial it is realized.

from

object in
This

entity
what
we

the call from

a

Conceptualists deny.
common

They

tell

that

idea

or

con

cept has
it is the

reality apart
that creates
outside
goes
as a

the

human that

mind, that
it has
no

mind

it,and
creative

sort

of existence

the

mind says

of

man.

The there
bundle

Nominalist
no

still

further, and
at

that

is

such

thing

concept

but that the all,

SIMPLE

APPREHENSION.

of

attributes

common

to

number

of

individuals

which
are on

the so-called concept

is supposed to represent, of
a

but the selected which

we

attributes
to

singleindividual,
to the

choose

fix

our

attention The

exclu which

sion form

of all other the bundle

attributes.
are

attributes

in their first origin, and

always
does is

remain, individual
similar
not
common are

attributes. found
in

The other

fact that others individuals

often their
about

alter

character. them
and

All, therefore, that

the

concept
which
we

into

which

they
to
as

are

combined

is its name,
to

all the
to

individuals

which

applicable apply it as well

very

is

its original possessor. the Nominalist

like result

Thus of

abolishes

the

notion
or

anything
is the

in universality of the
process

the concept of is the

idea

that

Simple Appre
name.

hension. it is that latter at

All that
he breaks

is universal with
up
a

Here

the the

concept

keeps applicableto

least

number

Conceptualist. The theory of an universal of individuals,even

fact of its being relative to each of though the mere them destroys any claim on its part to true Uni still asserts the existence of ens unum : he versality in multis, and the same one thing found in a number of individuals, even though its unity is purely a factitious
one,

faculty of regard the

same

brought about Generalization,

by
which

the

action enables

of the
us

to

with
any

being
mental

and of one the as one sensibility ape the sensibility there of another, without real objective sameness this which on

identification
more

of

them and

is

based.

The

Nominalist,

consistent

thorough-going

ERRORS

RESPECTING

IT.

135

does

not

attempt
Your he

to

keep

up

the
says

sham
to

of the

the Con-

Universal.

concepts,
says
a so

he
very

ceptualist (and
shadow
of
a

shade,
a

convenient

but the are rightly), stalking-horse of

which,
utter

however,

closer

examination throw universal convenient

over names

shows the

the

and
sort

unreality. Why not franklyconfess that

of

delusion
are

but

abridged
and
as a

notation
means

purposes

of

practical but having classification,

for
to

really nothing corresponding

for which But
one

them

in the

objects

they

stand

Nominalists unsolved. of

and

Conceptualists
What is it that ?
same

alike leave

question
process
us

guides

us

in the enables

Classification
as

What the

is it that different and that

to

to

regard
in

the

attributes

found
a common

different
name

individuals
I

give
answer

them of be

imagine

the

both that
so our

Nominalist these

and

Conceptualist
different,
that

would

attributes, though
one

nevertheless

resemble
senses we

produce
sions. whether whether
order

on

they indistinguishableimpres
the

another

But

if

pursue

question

and

ask

of

thing in
to
a

have certain

identity, similarity is possible without two objects belonging to the same any be alike without things can having some whether language does not cease common, does not a meaning if resemblance imply unity
alike of find
nature,

Nominalist
to

and any

Con satis

ceptualist
We

it hard

make

factoryanswer.
shall
see as we

proceed
are

what

the true

doctrine

of Universals

is.

We

at

present

concerned

with

136

SIMPLE

APPREHENSION.

it

only in so far Apprehension.

as

it affects the doctrine

are

of

Simple
is the

We

considering what

which vitiates the theory of Con underlying fallacy ception or Simple Apprehension as put forward by Post-Reformation to philosophers,and leads them the abyss of scepticism into which they are forced by the inexorable power of a pitiless Logic. Their weak point, then, does not consist merely
in

their

confusion
and

between the
idea

the of the

phantasm of
intellect. of their This

the
is

imagination
rather Their the

result
and

than

the

cause

errois.

radical

fundamental
it is

mistake

consists

in

the

supposition that
one

resemble
mentum
to

in

re,

possiblefor two objects to another without having some fundasomething truly and really common
this resemblance has its

both

of them, in which

origin.1
This
errors error we

is very

closelyconnected
above
as

with

other

that the
is

have

enumerated doctrine

introduced

into
It

modern

of

Simple Apprehension.
Mill alike fail
to

because

Hamilton

and

recognize identityof qualityas the basis of resem blance of confusing that they fall into the blunder together the material phantasm and the immaterial
idea. If Hamilton
and

his followers

had

clearly

i dis as an unity in some quality, similarity in unity of essence which consists tinguishes it from identity, S"v fiia y 5t uv (Arist. TOUTO '6/j.uia. TJ iroi^rrys ^aa. /u,"j/ yap oixrm, have IV. Hence that alike must two are things Metaphysics, 15, I.)
1

Aristotle

defines

some

one

enough
the mind

quality which that they should

should have

is have the

one

and similar

the

same

in

both.

It

is not that

and qualityor qualities,

power

of

regarding the

as similarity

identity.

13"
alike.

SIMPLE

APPKEHEKStOti.

son

It is
and

only
the

because

of the

vagueness

ol that
or

his outline
our

uncertainty
can see

of his in while

form
one

the he

imperfect other, and approaches

faculties
we nearer

him that

know
we

all the

when

viduality. There him, or nothing

which consists

is but

recognize his indi of universality about sort no that counterfeit universality

vague

shall

in the

indistinctness

of im

perfectperception. Modern philosophers and philohave mistaken two never sophizers would things mastered different from other if they had each so the principles, do not we say of Scholastic, but
of the Aristotelian very

Logic.
of the
them

Nothing
doctrine into
so

but

elements led

of

ignorance of the Stagirite

an

could
error.

have

fundamental

Just
in the

as

in

theology the
of
the

central

point

of

the

Reformation

sixteenth

century

consisted

rejectionof Papal Supremacy, so in Philo order of things and the Philosophy sophy the new had of the Reformation their point d'appui in the of Concep modern theory of the Concept and like all modern It is not tion. : reallynew errors, is but it dates from Pre-Reformation days, and in new and dressed old fallacyrefurbished an up in Europe until it it never took But root terms. home under found a a congenial religious system, which it grew and flourished, and to which it under
afforded
new

the most

material

assistance.
between

Without intellect
in

this and such

never

theory the confusion serves imagination, which good

stead

Protestantism
to

in its resistance

dogma,

would

ERRORS

RESPECTING

it.

139

have

gained

permanent

footing.
which have is been

Without
the

this

the of

philosophical
the
outset.

scepticism,
would

offspring
at

Reformation,
It
to

checked
once

its
is

is

this

theory

which,

adopted,
the

fatal doctrine in its

the of

consistent the Blessed

acceptance

of it

Catholic

Eucharist,
renders

is this belief little

which,
in God little under

ultimate

consequences, It is
an

impossible.
all rational

universal

solvent:

by

belief, all religious dogma,

faint
All all and truth

becomes,
at

its influence,

feeble,
becomes

and

last

altogether
to

disappears.
individual,
who
number

subjective
relative.

the
men

knowledge
it among

becomes their

If

philosophical

opinions
because

still retain the

to

some

positive
so

belief, it is only
follows
out
an

human its all

final
reason

mind

rarely
or

opinion

results,
it
with

because

in

contradiction
are

to

holds each

opinions
other.
This remarkable modern
"

which last

irre-

concileable
we see

alternative
way in the The

realized

in

most
our

cynical philosophy
antinomies which of

of

thinkers."

Kant,
admits

the
as

contradictory simultaneously
Herbert

propositions
true,
the all the
open

Hegel

despairing infidelity
on one or

agnosticism
of the of

of

Spencer,
school,
are

Materialistic the different

based

other

phases
the

of the

modern and

philosophical Conception.

heresy

respecting

Concept

'CHAPTER
THE
DOCTRINE

VIII.

OF

UNIVERSALS.

Re-statement

of

different
"

doctrines kinds

of of

Conception

"

What of

is meant Modern

by

Universals

Various
"

Unity
on

"

Errors it
"

Conceptualism
Results Scholastic Direct is
two

Nominalist
"

attack

Nominalism"

of

Nominalism Doctrine Reflex

"
"

Unity
W.
"

and

Universality objection
and
"

The -it
"

Sir

Hamilton's The
one

to
"

and

Cognition
kinds of of

the

many

What
"

Essence? Phases
"

Two

Universals
true

Ultra-Realism of Universals.

Its

Summary
return

the

Doctrine

WE last

must

now

from
we

the

digression of
the

our

chapter,
of

in

which

stated

modern

doctrine
and
must

Conception
out

and

Simple Apprehension
errors. we

pointed
first
sum

its fundamental
the

But

we

up

results at which is described

one

arrived.

Simple
Hamilton Attributes
as

Apprehension
the
observed
common

by
a

Sir

W.
of

grasping into
in various

of

number

individuals, the result

or

being the
which have

concept,
upon
our we

bundle

of

qualities,
the

made

minds

indistinguishable regard
as

impressions, and
same.

which

therefore

Simple Apprehension,
attention
to
one

says group

Mill, is the exclusive

of attributes the attributes
in
a

isolated the

in

an

object, apart from isolated br,mg those

rest,
are

thus

which

similar

number

RECAPITULATION.

141

of
common same

individuals,
name

to

which

we

and

describe

consequently give a as belonging to the

foundation of

class. Each of these theories

ignores the
in the

all resemblance
some or quality,

which
set

consists of

possession of
is the
same con

which qualities, it is

in all the

individuals
real

in which

found, and

sequently of a existing in the

mental
source

of nature underlying similarity of things, and nature not mere a

It

fiction. of all the

is this

error

which
modern

is the

chief

confusion

in

of its and

between to distinguish inability

philosophy: the phantasm

and

the

concept,

between

the mental

material

imma of
men

terial and
ever

faculties, between
From this

processes
error

animals.

same

proceeds
of

its all

increasing scepticism,
truth alike from
rotten

its

elimination
and

absolute The

foundation
and
must

edifice

unsafe,
and

Philosophy. renders each portion of the in gradual end necessarily

of

Religion

decay
Our

final destruction.

Catholic

theory

Simple Apprehension

or

Conception, on the other hand, is that it is the grasp ing by the intellect of that supra-sensible entity
which of the that underlies the of
sense.

sensible
It

and is the
to

material

qualities
of it is.
to

things

apprehension
what
sense

which

intellect

thing pierces through the

lies beneath
and

makes

the

be

The
some

veil of

thing

beyond it,and which is altogether beyond the reach of the imagination, other material or faculty. It attains the true any of the object which nature constitutes its essence,
a

which

nature

which

it

shares

with

all

other

objects

THE

DOCTRINE

OF

UNIVERSALS

belonging to
name as
:

the

same

class and
is is

called

by
in in
source

the

same

nature

which

alike perfectly

all,and,
all, but
of the
them
to

conceived
same

by

us,
a

not

only

alike

the
common

in all ;

nature

which

is the

of qualities
one

the
and
to

objects,causing
to

resemble

another
a

make

upon
we

us never

similar could

impressions :
attain of
a

nature

which

by

the

stripping off
of

of

some

of the

qualities fixing
to
can

number

objects,or
on one

by

any

exclusive

of the

attention
of the

group
:

of attributes
which

the
be

exclusion reached
in virtue

rest

nature

by

the of

and intellect, its

by

the
and

intellect alone,

immaterial

supra-sensible

character.
But
we now

arrive

at

another

of the most of
common can a

discussed What
found
one are

and
we

disputed questions to say respectingthis

individuals
same

widely Philosophy.
nature

in and

many the

? It

How
seems

it be

really
with

in all ?

contradiction

to
a

say

that

qualitypresent
in B.

in

is identical be
a

quality present
each

There
are

may

certain

similaritybetween
off from

them, but

other
?

by
If

the
an

different individuals in my
which

they not marked fact that they belong to apple-treeis to be found

be the
same

neighbour's garden
is at

it cannot

tree

the

same

time

found
in

in mine.
one

If the

attribute
same

of

mischievous

attribute So said

side.
not.

monkey, the also exist in another cannot by its the Nominalists and Conceptualists:

exists

of error teachers to whom we only the modern have but their repre given these distinctive names, in mediaeval have sentatives We now to days.

DIFFERENT

KINDS

OF

UN[TY.

143

investigate
is the
In
true

very

important question, viz:

of

What

doctrine
to

Universals where
save

order

understand

lies those
and

the who
St.

fallacy
have

into

which in
to

all the

have

fallen of

followed
we

steps
and

Aristotle
a

Thomas,
is

have

try

gain

clear

notion

of what

meant

by unity.1 Unity is of two

the
1.

kinds, the unity of

the

Individual

and

unity of the Universal. The unity of the Individual

we can

is

numerical
one,
a

unity ;
three.
nature.

count

the the the and

non

individuals,
Universal Individual say
multa.

two, of
to
no

The The
to
some

point
more.

unity of unity of object

ens

is

unity
us

enables

this

is

one

and

It is
2.

unum,

The
number
some ens unum

to

unity of the Universal of objects and say,

common one quality,

enables
"

us

to

point
in all.

All the

these
same

objects

have If is

and

in multis"

3.
to
sense

The
and

unity of
that is
one sense

the

Individual faculties
:

is

the sensitive
can

unity obvious it is the only sort

a

of

unity

Universal of sense,
natures

unity of th^ and a unity above beyond the capacity which it is possible only for intellectual
appreciate
:

the

to

grasp.

4.

The

unity

of

the from

Individual
all around.

separates
The
one

off

that of

in which Universal

it exists binds

unity

the

together

into

all those

Aristotle, Met.

iv. 6,

distinguishes four
The first two

kinds
"

of
rb

unity
of

on-

tinuity, totality,individuality, and

"\ovt
be
rb Had' fKaffTov,
as

universality

trw^x*5.

T^
may

rb Kad6\ov.
to
our

kinds

unity

passed over

irrelevant

purpose.

144

'IHE

DOCTRINE

OF

UN1VERSALS.

objects
other

in

which

it is

found,
be

respects

they

may

though separated from

even

in

all

each

other. 5. The mind

unity of the Individual first perceives in the order

the

is that of

which

the The

time.

unity of
the

Universal of nature,

is that inasmuch

which
as

comes no

first in individual

order

things could exist unless is previouslysupposed.

6. The and the

unity

at

least

of

Being

unity of the Individual is but inferior unity. The unity of the primary and originalunity. unity of the paint a picture,so
represent
to

secondary
is

Universal

7. The
can
can

Individual
to

is

one

of which

we

itself

unity of the Universal ourselves cannot a imagination. We put before in general,or of monkey in general. picture of man true is the unity of the Universal But a unity ? and Conceptualists and Here it is that Nominalists from fall away the truth. all the moderns They do
not

speak. Our imagination The one monkey, "c. man, be represented to our cannot

recognize
do
not
we

the

true

various

individuals

who

unity belong
that the
name

which
to

is
same

found

in

the
is
a

class.

They
that which

recognize
call

there

true

unity in
and it

which

by
human in

of
man one

humanity,
; that

constitutes the

the nature

of

is,as
same

represented in thing, whether in Jane, Mary,

civilized
or

mind,
in

and
or
or

the

found
or

John, Thomas,
;

Harry;
;

Susan
;

white

black

in

savage

in

into the world in

and
or

the
bad

baby recently ushered patriarch of ninety summers

the antediluvian
mortals

good

men

; in

and

146

THE

DOCTRINE

OF

UN1VERSALS.

unity in existing things,and therefore no uni this unity.1 based versality upon The Conceptualists differ from the Nominalists in this, that the former, after noting the similarity in the qualitiesobserved, give to each of them and to the concept they compose factitious unity. One a and the same concept is assigned to all. After they have noticed the mischievousness of the monkey, his quadrumanity, his mammality, his apelike-form, similar and noticed qualitiesin another, and in a should third, the Conceptualists say: we "Why each consider of these identical in not as qualities
true

all

these

different Of purposes
we

creatures
course we

? is

It
not

will

be but
as

very

convenient.

it

true,
them
the

for
the

practical
same,

will

regard
moreover,
same

and

will

regard,
as

nature

which

they
the

constitute

the

in all.

We of

will these

regard
of the other

mischievousness
as

of
with

the

first

little animals
second

identical
and

the mischievousness
and
so on

the
we

third,
because

all their
same

and qualities,

will,moreover
we

(forthe
cannot
see

convenience
difference think We
1

sake, and
of nature,
all

any

however

great it may
common

reallybe), monkey.

of them will

by

the

concept

them identify
Hamilton,
315,

all in
on

thought."
Logic, III.
125. In

Sir

W.

Lectures he
sums

his

Lectures

on
"

Metaphysics, II.
Generalization is
we

up
a mere

the

Conceptualist doctrine:
act

notoriously
find them
us

of

Comparison.
we

We

compare in certain the

same

objects ;
respects
this
name

similar
in the
us

in certain
same

respects, that is,

consider
as we

they
common

affect thus

manner,
same

in them, qualities
;

that

affect

in the

manner, ; and
as

the
can

and

to

quality we
each class."

give a
of the

name

predicate this
constitutes
them

of all and
a

resembling

effects

it

into

NOMINALISM.

147

"Not
sort

so," reply the

Nominalists.
these

"You
as

have

nc

of

right to regard

concepts

Universals.

creations they are nothing but they are mental what they are thought as being, and as they are as always thought or regarded by the mind part of be Individual an thought a object, they cannot Universal. only be realized in thought They can As
as

enveloped

in the

miscellaneous Individual

attributes

of the

Individual, and
remain."
This Nominalism of the
But

therefore

they

must

always
is but be rid

is

just
with

criticism.
an

Conceptualism
attempt
Nominalists the
name.

inconsistent

to

scepticism
what
is

it involves. the

theory
save

the

hold

All is

Individual, they say,

or or

only

Every
other
"

concept concept

attribute attribute.

is different
In
nature nature

from there which

every

only

certain
a common

of similarity
name

unity in us justifies
no

is

giving
groups
on a

to

the

various We
fix

and qualities
our

of certain

observed. qualities
group

attention and
pass
on sum

in
name

certain

individual then
we

up
a

this group second

in the

monkey,
we are

to

individual

and
some

attracted

by

certain

which qualities of qualities give the same recall others

we

by
name

law
and

of association
for convenience various

recall the sake

we

the

former,
to
we across

the

individuals before.
set

which And

which
come

have
a

observed

whenever which
comes

qualityor
is
a

of

qualities
too,

recalls the
to
our

group

first and

observed, the
very

name,

thoughts
for which

useful When

shorthand
I observe

expression
certain

all of them work

alike.

actions

destruction

for de?*ruc-

"

THE

DOCTRINE

OF

UNIVERSALS.

t'.on's who

sake,

I have his
paw

recalled

to my

mind
cage, held

the
and
too

thrust

outside

the

monkey, having
near

dragged within it the handkerchief bars, tore it to pieces in triumph

Whenever
whether
comes

the

with

malicious

I in
man

observe
or

similar

aimless
name

joy. destruction,

beast, the
I
recur

mischievous

to

my

mind

and which

to

dim
term.

and

indistinct

I first

procedure now characterized by the

l

the

employ our conceptions," says Mr. Mill (and he means by conceptions the group of qualities in some observed which we individual). for the and methodization of facts,but this colli colligation
We
"

"

gation
facts

does

not

except
term."

in

between the imply any connection merely metaphysical acceptation ideas is may become
a

of the but

The

connected,
connection of of this

this

connection without
are

simply

thought,
fact. We
consequence any

any

led to is
no

corresponding connection think of them together,but

than may
are

more

casual
the in
mere common

association.
name,

They
but there

by
ink
are

is

produced by linked together no corresponding

Hence

be

the

objects
words.

themselves.
was

Universals of the

This

the

doctrine

mediaeval

Nominalists, who, according to St.Anselm,

Universals
is the it
were a mere

taught
In the

that

empty

sound.2

Now,
human
"

what
first

consequence

of this doctrine

? of

place language.

utterlydestroys the nature Our words no longer express

our

Logic, ii. 195.

"

"

Universalia
De

esse

nonnisi TrixiUtfis

flatum
contra

vocis

docebant

nominates.

"

(St.Anselm,

fideSS.

blasphemiesRoscellini,c. 3.)

RESULTS

OF

NOMINALISM.

14$

ideas.
a

If

monkey

is

simply
I say,

an

abridged notation

for

group
common

of external
; if when
mean

objects, who
whenever
and

in I of

reallyhave nothing Monkeys are mischievous,

I
see

simply
a

that

certain
I
am

certain

shape

appearance

reminded whom and do

I

of the
once saw

performance tearing
the
a name

of

certain
to

objects thereby monkey pieces,

handkerchief with any

not

connect

general idea
to

present

in

my

mind,
I

meaning.
present
all
men

When
my

language ceases speak of honesty I

any

have
not

any have
to

do

to

mind
I
to

characteristic
the
name

common

whom allude

call

by

honest,
attributes for
men

but in

I
a

simply
certain
ence

certain
man

individual

individual

which

I choose
to

conveni whom
I

sake
in

to apply arbitrarily

other
as

include

the

class

honest.
no

But

for
"

honesty,
abstract

mischievousness,
ideas those
are

"c., that is

such

thing

all

nonsense.

things
are

which

our

exists except Nothing really senses can perceive. The

invisible faculties of

world

disappears
The
can we or we

altogether.

All is the
our

our

material. What

imagination
realize with
to

test

truth.

imagi
to
our

nation selves nalism

is true, what

fail thus non-existent.

picture
In

is either
is the

false

fact Nomi

necessary the school

companion
of
"

of the

sceptical
of

philosophy of
shares the

Sensationalists," and
inconsistencies faculties. assertion that

contradictions
man

and

those *vho deny to

If the there is
a

all his

higher
their in

Nominalists certain

cling
resemblance
a

to

^he qualitiesof
nature

objects outside
that
furnishes

of us,
a

certain for
our

uniformity of

basis

classification, this is

Ijo

THE

DOCTRINE

OF

UNIVERSALS.

simply to give up their whole position. This is the inconsistencyof which John Stuart Mill is continu allyguilty. He allows that there must be an agree the objects classified, that they mnst between ment similar impressions of sense, that us produce upon resemble one another, that they must they must else is all this but have common properties. What of the very the existence to admit objective unity
that he denies
is ? He

allows
is
a

that the fact of

course

of nature
But

uniform,
can

says

this

how there

I be

recognize

this

experience. uniformity unless

it is

to

circle ! certain them

recognized ? Clear instance of a vicious It begins by reading into things around us a uniformity,and ends by drawing forth out of
same

this

uniformity as
of
not
man.

the

discovery

of the

intellectual powers
But
we

must
not

linger over
the the
same can

these

false theories.
which in
a

We
we

have

yet answered
How
a

with difficulty

started.

thing be

found

two

objects
?

thousand
can

miles
same

apart, except

by

miracle

How

the

John, who is young, in Edinburgh, and Brazils lives in the stupid, vicious, and is identical thing which really the same
each

humanity be found in fair, clever,virtuous, and lives in Sambo, is old, ugly, who
? Is

it
in

found

of them

No, it is
and

not

the

same

identical
seem a

thing
para

which
dox
to

exists in each
say

all.

It may

it, but

it is nevertheless

true

that
as

the the

Universal
same

nature

which

the

mind
not

recognizes

in all

individuals,is thet

the same, inasmuch tively man's can rationality

reallyand objec it is impossible that one as be objectively identical witb

THE

SCHOLASTIC

DOCTRINE.

151

another
in the and the

man's
nature

rationality. But
as

it is

likeness perfect

it exists intellect

in the

various

individuals,
this

human

contemplating

perfect
aspect,

likeness, regarding it
pronounces

under

its intellectual

We in but in

by us to be an identity. of one that the rationality be know cannot man of another, with identical the rationality reality from all else we when regard it by abstraction
it
as

conceived

one

and

another,
between The

difference the the other.

two

perceive any sort of of the one of the rationality and perfect objective likeness between
we

cannot

rationalities in the
one common

paves

the

way

for their

repre

sentation This

mind

by

one

common

concept.
of which the
we same

concept, in virtue
ens
unum

as speak of rationality

in the

multis, as

in all human

beings, represents

of rationality

each

of this in not adequately. It is because inadequately accompanies our mental adequacy, which necessarily alike regard things perfectly representatives,that we the same. In scholastic as language, the metaphysical
: the physical things is the same but perfectlyalike in all : is not the same, essence the metaphysical essence being nothing else than the essence

of all human

physical essence
What nature,
copy

of
us

inadequately conceived by us. alike as it exists in is therefore perfectly inasmuch it is an exact as though inadequate all things imitate, the edict or pattern which
as

is for
same,

not

not
our we are same

because

quate, and

things
one

which the

and the alike but one only perfectly view of things is in its turn inade cannot help regarding as the same conceived by us under necessarily concept.

and

THE

DOCTRINE

OF

UNIVERSALS.

Hence
same

the

common

nature
as

is for
in each.

us

the

very

identical
same

thing
is
ens

it exists
as

the human

human
nature

nature
unum

Sambo.

John Humanity

has
or

in

multis,one
the

existingin many. Individual, but with

which is
one

It is one, not with the

singlething unity of the

That mul
be

unity of
is
one

the Universal.
cannot

with

individual

unity
with
mere

tiplied.
can

That

which

universal

be

because multiplied,

the

fact of
is not
we an

unity its being

universal

implies

that
a

unity,but yet it is as anything else but

as

unity unity which

It is
a

its

cannot

objective regard

there
its

is

no

unity,inasmuch diversity, except such as is implied

one.

true

but never existing in different individuals theless not an unity apart from its mental repre sentation, but rather a perfect likeness transformed
"

in

into of

unity by the mere Human Thought.

But if the

fact of its

being
is

the

object
to

general
can

idea

of

man

common

John
one

and and

Peter, how
the same?

it be realized it not
as

in

thoughtas
contra
one

Does

contain
to

dictory attributes according

the other fore to the
The
must

Yes, says
any

Sir

W.
or

belongs Hamilton,
idea

it

and

and

there

call up

notion
man

universalityof
doctrine
be.

is of
a

corresponding to manifestly impossible.

concept of
man

therefore

common

inherent of these account rejected on contradictions, in spiteof its claiming the authority of Locke.1
"
"

Locke

maintains

the

doctrine

(of Conceptualism) in
the Contradiction

its most
must

revoltingabsurdity, boldly admitting that be reali/ed, in spite of the Principleof

general notion

'Does

it

THE

DOCTRINE

OF

UNIVERSALS.

direct and

reflex cognition,between
When
an

direct and

reflex

Universals. before the

individual

object
the
or

is

placed
of

the intellect,

intellect has
sensible Peter

power

or abstracting educing from the qualitiesits underlying nature.

accidental

is the

presented
intellect

to

it.

By
out

its power
of him It then his

of

abstraction
and

draws
as a man.

humanity
a

recognizes him

has

direct

and

forms

the

direct

concept

cognition of Peter It neglects all man.

of Peter, his size,colour, peculiarities mental nationality, age, character, "c., and powers, is the universal Man regards him simply as man. of Peter. term This, in point expressing the nature of fact, is a Universal, but I have no right as yet its to regard it as such, or to pronounce explicitly
at present claim only a poten universality. It can tial universality.It may be called a direct Universal in that it is directly known by the intellect in the singleobject Peter, or a fundamental Universal in that of an the foundations are laid,or explicit universality as Universal, inasmuch a though in its metaphysical
own

the accidental

proper

nature

it is

such,

yet
mind

it is not that is
gone
on

yet
con

acknowledged to templating Peter.

be
I

such
have

by

the
not

yet

my

in whom quest of other individuals, real or possible, satis be found. At present I am it is found, or may fied with that Peter. I have

put aside
in

all the

qualities
look
at

individualize

this nature

Peter, and
in the

it in itself. I

perceivethe
I do
not

Universal
as

particular
it
as a

individual, but
Universal.
But I
now

yet

perceive
say
to

go

step further and

myself,

THE

ONE

AND

THE

MANY.

f$6

This

oncept
Peter.

of

humanity belongs to
We
must

other

individuals

besides

look abstracted

at

it not from
or

only

as

something
dual
to
a

which

I have

the

indivi

Peter, but
number. various and who

in itself We
must

as

common

communicable
to

regard
to

it in its relation

these itself
reason

individuals share in

whom

it communicates
and

its nature,

who,

by
the

of their
own. as

participationin it,acquire a unity of

other

their

In
a

words,
"

we a

must

look

at

Universal much
as

Universal

as

reflexUniversal
mind of it

inas

it is attained

by
reflex

the
act
as

itself and

exercising a
in

on reflecting cognition as a
"

logical Universal,
Universal But
must

inasmuch and
not

is

found fact. many

one

as

thought
nature

in external
one or

is the
one

it expresses
essence

?
nature

It

be

its very

is that

it is

in many

also be many; inasmuch as things. It must it is multiplied so as in John, Thomas, to be found It is Harry, Mary, Susan, "c., as well as in Peter. then time and in itself, at the same one : one many in

many

respect

to

the

many this

individuals

to

whom

it

stands found
as one

in relation.
as

Now,
the
a

logical Universal
How
can

is not it exist

such the

outside
same

mind.

and the

in

number
to

of individual unite them

things
one

without

mind

coming
its all

into

by
the
more

its
one

recognitionof
nature

identityin
;

all ?

It is indeed

in them

but

than

this: each them.

now

it includes
and

Universalityincludes the conception of their

the intellect

identity in
itself upon We have
"

all

by

exercising
to

another

Scholastic

mystery

explain

mystery,

however,

which,

like all mys-

156

THE

DOCTRINE

OF

UNIVERSALS.

teries,has only to

be

examined

to

fade

away

inconti
called

nently. What
essence,
a

is that

mysterious something mysteriously

what
essence

word less ask

which

renders

the

scarcely
Let In
common us

mysterious language of Aristotle?1

ourselves
we mean

by
a

essence

language the
extracted It

of

thing is that together

it constitutes

which

comprises
small it isy that

qualitiesunited
is that which

in
what

compass.

which of

contains

its

special charac comprises,

It
or

teristics.

Essence
to

peppermint
virtues

is

comprise, the the peppermint whence it is supposed

which

possessed
So

by

extracted.

is that
essence an

peppermint in philosophicallanguage
what it is, the inner

makes

what

it is.

the

is that which

makes

object
of
makes

nature

whence

springs all its

is the
essence

characteristic
men

qualities. Humanity
as

inasmuch individual
human.

it contains member Hence

in

itself all that

every

of the
essence

species really and

is

truly
name

merely
the
nature

another of the

for

that
taken The

which

constitutes

individual

apart
It is the

from

the

fact of his indivi that nature

he

duality.
so

direct

Universal
essence

expresses of

considered.
and I

John that

is

man,

directlytake
I think
essence

cognizance of his univer

as a man.

when sality
But

of him of

the

John
the

is also

the

essence

of

Peter, Sambo,

"c., and

of all the individuals

Universal reflex
as

in whom expresses I

humanity
that
*

is found, and
nature

common

regarded
.

common.

reflect
Aristo

We

have

already explained (p.5) the

T)" ri

meaning

of the the

telian

expression

$v elvai. which

is the

equivalentof

Latin

1 WO

KINDS

(Jb

UN1VERSALS.

157

on

the

fact of its
a

being common
as

to

them

and all, the

common

man

becomes
nature

Universal reflex all.

expressing

of them

rather mind class. Here versal

or

put
in

it out

or They lose their individuality, before of sight and appear my

their

corporate

capacity
question
essence :

as

Universal

we

start

new

Does

the

Uni

contain of

the it?

whole Does

of
ever

each

individual

only part
is not
to

it

express

which

the strictly We shall in

must

essence,
see

but from the

joined
arise

it ?
are

that

anything is yet always this question

of
our

what

called
we

Logic

Heads
to

Prenext

dicables.

These
In

postpone
one we

chapter. thing

the
to

present
say
to

have

still in order

some

further
be

about
our

Universals
readers.

that

they
We

may

clear
seen one

have

that which

there
we

are

two

kinds

of

Uni

versals, the
the of of

have

termed

fundamental, metaphysical. The

nature

mind in Peter

potential, contemplates
a

Peter

as

found

in

direct

act
or

cognition.

The

other
as a

is the Universal. of
Peter

Universal logical
Here

Universal

regarded
the
not

th^

mind of
as

contemplates cognition,
common

nature

in

reflexact

fact, to
The their

in Peter, but merely as found to John, Thomas, Mary, Jane, "c. ; all existingmembers of the human race. mistake of the

in

Conceptualists
these
two

consists of Uni

in

confusion
Instead

between of

kinds

versals. started

keeping

them

separate,

they

has the theory that the mind power of transforming into the other, or rather, of one for itself out of the forming a logical Universal

the

158

THE

DOCTRINE

OF

UNIVERSALS.

similar

found qualities

in various

individuals.
act
as

They
mind nature, the

did

not

distinguish between

the

of human

the

of Peter contemplating the nature and so obtaining a knowledge of

medium

Peter
act

through
of
the

of

the

concept, and

the

mind

putting
the human a]ike.

aside

all

thought
found
to

of Peter
and

and

on reflecting men

nature

in him think

in all other

They seemed reflex knowledge,

not
a as

that
we us

and

that
to

nature,
but
as

known

knowledge was contemplate Peter's through the concept, by

the
process

all

concept
from

already formed
him his

of

stripping off
Hence
as

individual

above the rose they never painted on the imagination, and proves
to

peculiarities. picture of Peter

their with
error

as
error

to

Universals

be

identical

their

respectingthe nature The Nominalists,

weakness mind
can

of
on

Simple Apprehension.
the other

hand, seeing the

doctrine

of

the

Conceptualist
for
itself

that

the
out

form
not

universal and

concepts
can

of
the

qualities
existence

really identical, unity

all universal where idea

assert
no

of

there Universals

is

true

off unity, threw so-called, except,

of

properly

names.

everything
at

to

be time

individual

and

They asserted particular, though

certain a they quietly assumed asserted what uniformityof nature which practically an they denied, and which was assumption, uncon into their system in order to sciously introduced semblance of consistency. give it some
same

the

But

there

is

third

error

attributed ancient

by
and

Aristotle
middle

to

respecting Universals Plato, and found in a few Logicians,

as a

age

sort

of

ULTRA-REALISM.

159

reaction
This
was

against
the that

Nominalism of the
as

and

Conceptualism.
who
an

error

Ultra-Realists

asserted

Universals
and
two

stick have from the

existence Their
Some
us

in external doctrine them

nature

apart

mind.

assumed that

different exist

shapes.
of

of

asserted

there

outside

certain

universal

forms,

subsisting in themselves,
When
we

eternal,
any

immutable,
universal wonderful which
are are

invisible.

entertain
one or

idea,

we

really contemplate

of these

forms.

They are the types copied in existing things of

When
I

patterns

which
I

they
of
an

the
as

original archetypes.
a

think

Peter

man,

am

really contemplating
in Peter. I
am

archetypal humanity
think of

realized their

When

monkeys
an

and

mischief,
and

contemplating
dom,
ness,

archetypal

eternal

really monkeybut
an

and

an

of

which

archetypal and the objects

eternal before
me

mischievousare

imperfect copy.
Now
as

this form
at

of Ultra- Realism
appears
;

is not

so

ridiculous
a

it

first

sight

in

fact, under
with

kindly
truth. in the Divine

it interpretation, These mind

is almost ideas

identical
a

the

archetypal
of God.
as

have
are

real existence in all the

They
the

contained after which

to

Intellect

patterns
power

things were
universal is the
and

made,
type
result

and under

man's

recognize
the in the rise

the

the

peculiaritiesof

individual

of his

therefore

being made being able to

sort

image

of God, the
concrete

above

object
of
was

to

some

of

knowledge

of the

ideal

type
This

which

it is the

imperfect representation.
of Plato, and had

probably the meaning

Aristotle

I6o

THE

DOCTRINE

OF

UNIVERSALS.

been

more

decided of Creation
not

in

his of have

Theism,
all accused

and

held

the he

doctrine

things by God,
the
to

probably theory
of

would

Platonic list of

merely adding
this
us a

another

the

phenomena. If, however, attributing to ledge

mind

doctrine

be

interpreted
know in

as

direct

and
as

immediate

of of

the
God

archetypal
(as
seems

ideas
to

existing
been

the

taught of the Platonists), it is clearly false. by some Our be no knowledge would longer a knowledge of the ideas of objects existing around but us, in the be a direct mind of God, or else would the arche it would as identify pantheism, inasmuch
type of the
the world The
been Divine
sense.

have

intellect with

the realization

in

of
second

form

of Ultra-Realism, said to have of

taught by William mediaeval Logicians, was

a

Champeaux
the

and

few

that

Universal

exists

as

Universal

in

individual
in the
same

things, that
manner as

it exists it exists
sort o!;

outside
in the

of the mind

mind,

that

consequently
the
two

there

is

no

difference of which
now on

between
we

aspects of the
This

Universal doctrine
words is

have

exploded.
its refutation. the individual

already spoken. It is scarcelyworth

If the Universal

wasting
as

such

is found mind

things,apart from to be contemplates them, it ceases

in all.

the
a

that
at

Universal

On

what

individual
the mind

ground can that which is found in an Universal ? Outside a object be termed and separate everything has its own
nature

determined

distinct

from

all around

it.

To

162

THE

DOCTRINE

Of

UN1VERSALS.

conceptions

are

inadequate,
identifies

and

it

is

this

very
as

inadequacy
they
4. the exist The in

which
their

for

us

things
identical.

which,

reality,
nature

are

not

Universal intellect
nature

exists
of its

as

universal

in

human the

by

virtue
in

power

to

recog

nize

common

the

various Universal

members is

of

class.

Thus

the

Universal
human

as

appre in

hended

by

the

intellect it
does
not

as

existing
exist it is
in

the

individuals,
a

although
or we

them

as

Universal,
human

may but in which

say

that

formed
in

by
the

the various which which

intellect,
individuals

exists
it

fundamentally
is

found,

principle
a

Scholastic is
to

Philosophy
greatest
doctrine

expresses

by

phrase
the

of

the

importance,1
of Universals.

furnishing

key

the

whole

"

Universalia

sunt

formaliter

ID

mcnte.

fundamentaliter

in

rebus

ipsis."

CHAPTER
OF

IX,

ON

THE

HEADS

PREDICABLES.

Recapitulation Cognition
"
"

"

Primary
First

object
Second of
"

of

Thought
"

"

Direct
Heads

and

Keflex

and

Intentions
"

of Predicablea kinds
"

Division
"

of

Heads
"

Predicables Differentia

Various
"

of

Uni-

versals Summum
versals
"

Species
Genus

Genus

Property
Double of
"

Accident" of
"

and

Infima
"

Species
Two

"

aspect

UniAbso

Subaltern

Classes
"

meanings
Accidents

Species
False
or

lute Infima
"

Infima

Species

Inseparable
Real Kinds"

view

of

Species"

Mill's
or

Categories

Predicaments

Predicaments

Predicables.

WE

have

now

had

before We
are

us

the have

various
seen

doctrines that the

errors

respecting
errors

Universals.

respecting them

closelyallied
or

to the

respecting Simple Apprehension with confusion They commence they

heads
I.
as

Conception. thought
errors

of

and
are

lead

on

to

utter

scepticism.
be summed

These
up

multiform,
:

but

may

under

three

The

Ultra- Realists
have
a

maintain

that

Universals the
mind
"

such
as or

real

existence

outside

either

self-existent
as we

forms the

wandering
Divine

about
"

the
and

world,
that
one

existing in
form
a

Intellect

when of

general idea,
or

the

mind
some

grasps of the

these

forms,
mind of

contemplates

ideas

in the

God.

164

ON

THE

HEADS

OF

PREDICABLES.

2.

The

Nominalists
as

hold
no

on

the

other

hand

that

Universals
in

such

have which which

a

sort
are a

of existence useful
may be

except

general
When

names,

shorthand
summed

nomenclature
up.
we

under form

classes

of certain
we

attributes
in
an

observed

general idea we reallythink which are individual,and which we individual,but which assign by
reason

to other

individuals

of

supposed

resem

blance

existingamong

them.

3. The

exist in the

that Universals Conceptualists assert mind, and are the creation of the mind,
on

though
number

based

certain
:

similarities

observed

in
are

of individuals

that, consequently,they
absolute.
we a

something relative, not Simple Apprehension

attributes
4. St. The and

In

the

act

of

identify these
common
name.

similar

give them Schoolmen,

who
may be

following
called

Aristotle

and

Thomas,
that

Moderate

Realists,
but
not

assert
as

Universals

exist outside of

the mind

that Universals,
intellect

in the act

Simple Apprehension
the individual
takes appre

the

abstracts universal

from

hended

the

concept, and
act

cognisance
is

of the individual The result

or

through
of this

the concept. of

Apprehension

the

of which our by means the thing apprehended or concerned. grasps not must we forget that though Simple

concept

idea

intellect
For

Appre
the

hension

consists
and

in the

formation

of concepts,

primary
is not

immediate

the

concept but
When and

object of the the object of

before
an

intellectual act
which

it is the
in the Zoo
a

concept.

I stand

the

cage

Gardens logical

form

idea of what

monkey

PRIMARY

OBJECT

OF

THOUGHT.

~6s

is, when
creatures

say

to me,

myself respecting
"

one

of
the

the first

before
my

Here

is the

monkey,"
individual

object of
who

thoughts
to
means

is

monkey
idea of
a

gives

rise

my

reflections. which
I

My

monkey
further

is the the

employ
me.

in It

order

to

comprehend
a

individual
process
to

before
turn to

mental

my

requires thoughts away

I ha.ve

from formed

the concrete
of

individual

the

idea that

it.
the but
to

The
not

fact that

first the

object

of

our

the

concept,
us

individual

thoughts is through the

the
two

concept, leads
kinds of

the

difference

between

reflex. In Direct immediately to the of the individual, without nature comparing it with anything else. We look at it through the idea we form in the intellectual take cognisance act by which we cognition, direct and look directly and Cognition we
of it, but
we

do

not

look

at

the

idea

itself.
with

We
a

always begin in all exercise of our direct cognition of the object which
and called the
turns

minds

occupies them,
is

for this
an

reason

direct

cognition

sometimes it is what

act

of the

intention,because first
constitution
act
a one

mind

from

its very

first intends^or

its attention
I stand

to, in the
before

it

for instance Gardens tained in and

cage

performs. When in the Zoological

animals
con a

contemplate
"

of the is

it, and
of

say, my

This

monkey,"
the

the

primary object
before idea
me.

I consider

thoughts it through
monkey
is

is

individual of the
this

the medium
is to consider
I

monkey.
My

My
idea this

First Intention
of the

monkey.
to

means

employ
I may

comprehend

particularone

of the class.

i"6

ON

THE

HEADS

OF

PREDICABLES.

regard
teeth,
the

it under
to

all kinds

of aspects.

I may
to
or

turn

my

attention
or

its thick

black

hair, or
for nuts,
at

its
to

grinning
the
or

to

its fondness

fact
to

that it is
malice

suckling a
with offended various
am

little monkey it

its breast,
another

which

pinches
I
am

monkey
case con

which

has

it,but

in each

sidering the monkey.

inasmuch this
my I
as

of peculiarities
in acts

this individual Intention

on

engaged
my

of the First

first intention which

naturally turns
has
first

particular monkey
notice. it

attracted

subsequent process mind from the contemplation of this turn to my particular individual to the contemplation of the of monkey in general,and the relation to nature
each

But

requires a

further

and

other

of

the
my

various mind

ideas

that

have it.
I

been
must

passing through
in reflect
as

respecting
the

order

to

decide

whether

term

monkey,
creatures

I understand

it,is applicable to
before
me

other
not

in

the

cage but

;
are

whether

only
;

this

monkey
its
in

all

monkeys
is

mischievous
same as

whether malice

mischievousness

the

its
or

pinching its unfortunate neighbour, is only an accidental connection there

the
two ;

whether between

whether
on

in fours

virtue instead

of of
who

its
on

monkeydom
two

it

walks

all
are

feet ;

whether

there

monkeys
I
am

walk

upright.
Reflex

In all these

considerations
in

Cognition
back that
am

that

the

mind

exercisinga turns or reflects

the
various

itself
ideas I

to
are

the

consideration result
acts

of its
are

the

of which

direct
Second

cognitions.
Intentions

performing

of

FIRST

AND

SECOND

INTENTIONS.

16?

the mind,

in that
act

the

mind

by
under

further
a new

and

second

intellectual
various It ideas

considers,
in
not

aspect, the

formed
them

in the acts

of the first intention.

it may take
cog

marshals

order, that
as

nisance

of them,
the

the
of the

media
poor
a

through
beast

which
me,

apprehend
but each
a as

nature

before relation

separate

entities
I

having

certain
in It which

to
as

other, which
of
now

apprehend
furniture. of

themselves

part

my
as

mental forms
to

contemplates
I

them

thought
their

compare
to

together
other, and
are

in order
to

discover individual

relations
to

each

other

objects

which

they
and and these I

the immediate applicable. I now put away direct thought of this individual monkey, with myself immediately and directly occupy

ideas
I have

in

themselves.1

I reflect

and

say

to

myself:
me as a

been

monkey.
connection

looking at this object Why do I call it a monkey

between this do individual
1

before ? and

What
the

is the idea and

ol

monkey it, an monkey

between

Why
?

again
What ? and
on.

think

of

it as,

call

animal and

is the What

connection

between

animal

again

is the connection all

monkey
"

hirsute ?

Are

monkeys
the

hirsute ?
These

and

so

Second

Intentions

of

our

thoughts,
i

Cf. St. Thos. reflectitur

sive sine

Opusc.
supra
se

44

(Ed.

Rom.
et

48),
ea

I.

"

Sed
in
eo

quia
sunt,

Intelsive
a

lectus

ipsum

supra

quas

subjective
intellectum
cum

objective,
conditionibus
seu

considerat materiae

iterum
:

hominem
videt

sic
talis

se

et

quod
et

natura

tali
et

universalitate
et

abstractione
reaiiter de
est

intellecta
in hoc

potest
bane

attribui

huic
ideo

illi individuo, secundam

seu

quod

illo individuo
et vocal

format

intentionem

tali natura,

ttniversale

vel hujusmodi.' praedicabile

168

ON

THE

HEADS

OF

PREDICABLES.

further

aspect
the

under ideas

which
about
are

we

contemplate
we

the

objects and
duce
us

which
called

think, intro
five Head* them

to directly

what
we are

the
at

of Prcdicibles. different
under We road.

But

may

arrive

by

They

also

the various
are

divisions

which

all Universal

ideas

comprised.
and

have

already spoken
as one

of Transcendental divisions ideas which

were

Non-transcendental
and
we

of the

of ideas,
certain

said that Transcendental

and
one or

supreme under

exhaustive
another

notions

aspect, all
all other

comprise, existing things.

ideas
are

Putting
limited

them
and

aside,
limited
distinct

Universal
as

partial, inasmuch
number classes.

only
be each it

certain
and
or

of

they comprise individuals forming

But

separate

classes
or

may

large

small, they may

The

exclude

include

livingthings includes under sand-eels, cauliflowers, porcupines, mosquitoes, appleand codfish, and members

other.

class

trees, negroes,

of
the

the

House

oj

Legislature ;
clude
may
one

these
One

various

classes

another.
a

class, on

comprise
which has

number

of subordinate classes
under

mutually ex other hand, classes,each

to

of

other

subordinate
and vegetables

it, as

livingthingscontains

it

animals,

herbs and contains shrubs, trees trees, and vegetables contains cherry-trees, apple-trees, plum-trees, while be broken into indivi cherry-trees may up at once

duals

"

all the

individual

cherry-trees real
classes
express
a are

or

pos

sible.

Corresponding
ideas whole
or

to

these

Universal part
or

concepts,

which

the indi-

of the

essential

nature

of

the

various

170

ON

THE

HEADS

OF

PREDICABLES

as necessarily

Duke

included

in

or

excluded

from

the
Nor

class of indeed
class
or

or good-looking,

rich, or

well-mannered.

is he

of absolute

of members
who

of creatures
is

in the necessity included of the Higher Court of Legislature, cook their food, or who wear clothes.

There

of things to prevent nothing in the nature him from of going about or eating his food raw, unclad. Universals, therefore,may be, not a part of
essence

the
to
not
or

of the

individual,but
in
some

it, either
in others virtue

being present
(as for instance
case

something joined instances, but

or

riches

good
:

manners

in the

of individual

men)

or

being

always present in point of fact, though the individual might stillretain his proper nature, even though this absent, as for instance cooking particular qualitywere or food,or making exchanges, using spokenlanguage. This gives us five different kinds of Universals, according to the five possible relations of the
concept and
i.

the individual

in whom the

it exists. whole
essence

The

concept

may

express

of

the

individuals,in whom
accidental class that
word
we

it is found, all else

them
;

being
any

merely
smaller

to

that

is to that

say,

may

form the

than

expressed
contains
to

by
the

the

additional
nature

standing for which peculiarities

of the individuals.
essence

concept,
not
man

are

essential

Thus

is said to
con-

contain tained of

the under

whole it.

of the
an

individuals

It is not

essential characteristic

John Smith that he is an European, or that he is a whisky,or gambler, or that he is given to too much that he has a white skin, or that he is long-limbed, or that he has a that he trades with his neighbours, or

SPECIES.

171

that he uses or slight squint, he rarely,if ever, is seen have that said that he
to

very

bad
a

language, or that
church. When forth
I
set

inside
man,

is

have without

all
to

is essential
any

his

nature,

having

include This cables.

of the

amiable the

aforesaid. qualities
our

furnishes

first of

Heads

of Predi-

SPECIES

contains
a

the

whole which be
a

essence

of

the

indi the
to

vidual,
whole each

and
essence

concept
is said
to

thus in species contained

to

includes reference under Smith

to

and

all of the
term.

individuals in reference of the human Smith contain

not to

the

general
any

Man

John

(or
be

other

member which

race) is said

the

to species
2.

John
may It may

belongs.
a

The

concept

part of the
the

essence

of the
that

individuals. makes of their

I

express

whole
are

of
nor

which whole

them

be

what

they

the
some

essential
may

characteristics, but
up

only
man

of them.

break

the

concept

in it. These comprised simpler concepts whole contain the will of not simpler concepts the essence of John Smith, but they will contain into
a

part
is
an

of

his

essence.

If, for instance,

in any

say

that

he

animal

(not using the word

uncompli

mentary
nature.

sense), I express

only

part of his essential

he is
a

Or, again, if
a

I say

that

living being,
is essential

I express
to

still smaller If

part of that which

him.

again
power

speak

of

him

as

rational, or ideas, I
from
am

possessedof

the

of forming

abstract

expressing only a portion of namely, which distinguisheshim

his
as

essence,
a man

that,
all

i?a

ON

THE

HEADS

OF

PREDtCABLES.

other
or

animals.

am

assigning to
of his
case
essence.

him

the distinctive

determining part
Now in
we we

this
express

last is when

the

part of his
that he is

essence

which which
or

obviously different
we or

from
an

thai,

express

say

animal

livingbeing.
wider
to
are

of

have

They

minabiles classes whole

livingbeing are the names classes, of more general concepts which be restricted by some mark. distinguishing called in scholastic language paries deteressentice, representing parts of the essence
have
may
to

Animal

which
essence on

be

limited

in crder in the

that the

be other

expressed
hand,
one

class-name.
name

Rational,

the

is the

of the classes
:

qualitywhich
it restricts the

restricts animal
to

of these

wider

the

species man.
in order may be

It is called
essence

pars determinant
limits combined the

the part of the essenticz,

which
two

wider

concept
essence

that in the contained.

the whole is thus

to

The

species man

rational, added
animal. Thus
we

and

composed of the concept determining the concept

new

obtain

two two

Heads

of Predicables
essence.

corresponding
GENUS
or
as

to these

parts of the

expresses

the pars determinabilis

essenticz.

it is sometimes
as

called, the
of which

material

part, inas
is made

much has
to

the
have

matter

anything
or

given
be

to

it

shape or essential by something that forms

its class which
to

characteristic informs somehow

or

it.
to

It represents the wider

has

limited, in order

reach

the

species
essence.

class

which

is said to contain

his whole

GENUS

AND

DIFFERENTIA.

173

DIFFERENTIA

expresses
as

the

pars

determinant

issentia, or
part, inasmuch
the
as

it is sometimes
as

called, the
or

formal
form
to

it

informs
to

gives
may

the
be

matter,
an

and

gives
mass

what

regarded

unformed It

its the
to
as

shape.
which
to limit

represents
be added class

or distinguishing form limiting characteristic

has to
the

the

wider

class

in

order

wider

aforesaid.

3. The is

concept
to

may

joined
from
not

the
cause,

essence,

effect
or

and with relation former

something either flowing from so necessarilyjoined

it
to
case as

contain

which it
to
as

it,
but

connected such
In
a

effect it that the

with
it

cause,

holding
or

might

be

there
to

not.

the

Universal

is said

be is

peculiar to
found
in

or

property of the
of
the

individual.

It It is

all

members

species.
to

invariably and
nature,
it is absent ideas
man.

of

necessity joined
it is connected that
nature
so

their

inner

with

which

intimatelythat
is present and
to

present
where

wherever

it is absent. written in all Yet what

men

Thus

able is
a

express his

by spoken or
It is found
nature.
on

language
;

it is

Property of invariablyBaited
absent
to

to

human

it is

might
in
the

be

without

encroaching
There who is had
no a

essential

humanity.
of
not
a man

contradiction rational other

men.

idea

nature,

yet

could

convey

his ideas In
not

to

the

latter

case,

that

is, if the
accidental be found

attribute
as

be

connected
cause,

with it is said
or

the
to

essential be
not

nature to

effect indi

with

the

vidual.

It may

may

in all members

X7"

ON

THE

HEADS

OF

PREDICABLES.

of
but

the

class

to
a

which
nature

the that
inner be

individual
it does
nature not

belongs,
neces

it is of such
accompany

sarily
members absent.

the

of
or

all it may

the be

of Thus

class.

It may

present

Mahometan, white, European, teetotaller,

"c.,
any if be
are

learned, virtuous, married,

man.

Accidents connected
were

of with

They
as

are

not

in Even

way

humanity
all men,

such.

they

present in
If every

still

they

would

Accidents.

the face of the earth were to take living man upon the pledge (and keep it), to join the religion were or of the Prophet, still teetotaller and Mussulman would be Accidents is not of humanity. Hence Accident an members of a class, merely a qualityfound in. some in others, but and in some not a quality found but of a class (and perhaps in all), members un
connected with the essential members
nature

which

constitutes which is

the

individual

of the
or

class,and
under

expressed
are

in the

idea

concept

which

contained. into
in latter

Accident
are

Accordingly we may : Separable and Inseparable

some are

they distinguish
the former
not

found

members

of in

class, but
members

in
a

all ; the

found

all the
its

of

class, though unconnected

This

with

essence. :

gives us

two

fresh is not

divisions

PROPERTY,
is
so

which

part of the
some

essence,

but

necessarily joined to it by that it is invariably found

who

law each

of causation,
and all indi

in

viduals

belong
which

to

the

species.
part
may

ACCIDENT,

is not
to

of the
or

essence

Of

necessarily joined

it, but

may

not

be

PROPERTY

AND

ACCIDENT.

173

present

in

the

individuals

which

belong
of

to

the

species.
Hence
we

have

Five

Heads

Predicables;

Genus, Species,
are

arrived

at

They Property, Accident. Differentia, by the following process of division :

either

Every predicable expresses

i.

Whole

essence

of individuals /Material

Species
Genus
.

part part
.
.

:e| Formal
3.

Differentia

(S
.

Something
to
essence

Necessarily

Property

joined
But
Because

(Contingently.Accident
are are
a

(o-u/i^
of
Predicables
as

why

they
number

called

Heads
or

they
to,
assert

predicated of,
of them of many. heads each
;
as

proclaimed
true,
not

belonging
We
can

different

individuals.

each of
or

of

one

object alone,
various in their of
are

but

Moreover,
of all
and

divisions relation
we

they are the possible concepts

to

to

other
to

the

individuals
way,

which the

think the

or,

put
of

it another
our

they

among

results

acts

of

reflex01

indirect There tions

i.

cognition.
still remain
some

several of them.

important
there from
up

considera

respecting
For

each

individual which first it falls

may the of the

be

many

classes
all
or

under

highest
of
to

of

(which
rather
to

is the the the

breaking
before

Universal,

Transcendental lowest
we

concept
come

Being)
indivi of

down

duals, the
the

concept
nature

which of

expresses

the

whole

essential

all

the

objects contained

iy6

ON

THE

READS

Of

PKEDICABLES.

ander classes

it.

Between
or

these

there

are

number
as

of

greater
more

smaller
to

according
concept
up

they

approach
to

nearly
which contains
us
a

the

the

concept
and

is

broken

Being, or directly into

of Genus
a a

of

individuals
This

their whole
new

essence.

gives

division

and Genus

have Speciesrespectively. We which be a Species ; can never which

a can never

first of all

last of all
between

Species
the
two

be

Genus,

and

enough to be accommodating shall require. the other, as need one or Genus is the Summum highest and (a) The largestclass of all,the first breaking up of the and all-embracing concept of Being. Transcendental (b) The Infima Speciesis the lowest and smallest class,the last Universal, the smallest collection of
number individual

of classes

are
we

objects. (c)Subordinate,or Subaltern, or Intermediate classes or respectively genera species, according as

consider them
or

in relation the

to

the

smaller

classes
In

below

them,
to

larger classes

above

them.

relation
to to

the

former
are

the
those

latter

they
Thus

below

them

they are genera ; in relation with regard species. Genera regard to those ; species with
is
a

above

them.
man,
a

animal

genus with
to

as

compared

with

Mammals

is

as species compared in regard a genus

beingsthat live. ab seals, a species

Jewels is a genus with compared with animals. with regard to stones% regard to diamonds, a species without life. to things or
2.

We be

have

said
at

that
a

these

universal

concepts
are

may

looked

in

double

aspect.

They

at

I7"

ON

THE

HEADS

OF

PREDICABLES.

which

proceed from
Genus Summum

the
to

highest
as

to

the

lowest, from

the Summum
3. The
next

the

Infima Species. being

be

Genus

the

largestclass

to

the Transcendental all

concept of Being under

be ranged, cannot subordinated to higher Genus, therefore never any be a Species. It is the colonel of the regiment can who be a subordinate and is subject can never officer,

which

existingobjects can

only to general things.

has
most

the

Transcendental

concept, which
army

is the

in command
It

of the whole

is called

yeviKtoTarov

(the

most

by the Greek generic of

extension

existing logicians7^09
It
as

of

all genera).

the

maximum

of

inasmuch

it is the
can

extensive and the

class under it contains class.

It

which
a

the individual

be

ranged, composing

maximum

of members
the minimum

is,moreover,
as a

inasmuch of comprehension,
all concepts,

it is the

simplest of
of attributes
the

and it.

so

has

minimum all

contained

in
;

It

is of

logical wholes

greatest

come

to
can

metaphysical wholes the smallest. Infima Speciesas being the last class we 4. The to previous to the individuals, is subordinate therefore all the classes above never it, and
of all be
a

genus.

It is the

the lance-corporal,
never can

lowest have

of non-commissioned
any

officers,who
over

command,

except
Greek

called
the
most

by

the

specificof
under

It is private soldiers. logicians eZSo? "l8tfca)rarov} all species. It is the minimum

as

of extension, inasmuch
of all classes

it is the

least

extensive
can

which

the the

individual
maximum

be

ranged.
hension,

It is, inasmuch

moreover,
as

of compre
compre-

it

is

the

most

SUBALTERN

CLASSES.

179

hensive

of

all

ideas, and

so

has in

maximum
It

of

qualitiesor attributes contained the smallest, of logical wholes

wholes the

it.

is of all

all

metaphysical
the
are

greatest.
the
are a

5. Between there Species

Summum

Genus of classes

and which

Infima
called all the

number
are

Subalterns, and
classes
are

which

subordinate the classes

take
we

to

above

them,
to

while them.

below the

them

subordinate
or

They
as a

character them them.

com

of genus with
a are

species, according
below,
various
or

compare

class the and in

with

class

above

They
the the

officers

of the

regiment,
are

missioned colonel

non-commissioned,
command who
are

who

between and

of the whole

regiment
but

corporal,

commands called

nothing by
in Greek

private
sub

soldiers.
altern

They

logicians
contain
as

genera
more

(yevr) "rvvd\\7}\a). They

individuals

under

them

approach

to

the

Summum them the

in They contain as they approach viduals.

they Genus, but fewer qualities. in proportion more qualities

fewer indi

proportion

but Infima Species,

wholes:
classes

They are both logical wholes

and

logical and
in

metaphysical
of the smaller under

respect

individuals

contained of them.

them,
narrower

in respect Metaphysical wholes contained in concepts or qualities We rather class

viduals
no

the

is used observe, therefore, that Species different which

senses,
i.

in two

Sometimes whole
essence

it

means

that
the indi

contains
under

the

of

contained beneath

it, and
This

which, therefore, has

is the it

species
none

it.
2.

Infima Species,
that class

and

other.

Sometimes

means

tfe

ON

THE

HEADS

OF

PREDICABLES.

which

contains contained
which is the

the whole
in

essence

common

to

the

con

cepts
into
animal
as

it,and

also

the

smaller up.

classes
Thus

it is

immediately
men

broken

speciesof
the

and
common

brutes taken
to

together,
of them.
same come

containing
to

nature

both

This

is the Subaltern

relation
under

the

which holds the Species, species which immediately

are

it,when
to

they
to

is

common

all of

regarded them, that

to contrast

in

respect of what

the

holds called

in relation

the individuals. those

Infima Species It is,therefore, immediately

the classes

Species in relation subordinate species, in

above

to

it,which

are

called

genera

in relation to them.
nature
common

of the contains the whole Just as man to John, Peter, Susan, Jane, "c., so

does

animal

the

whole

nature

common

to

men,

birds, beasts, fishes,

have
At

insects,"c.
We
may
now

illustrate what

we

been
the

saying
lies

by
sent

the

familiar

Porphyrian objects.
which is to
up and fix We
our

tree.

root

the Summum

Genus, Substance, while the leaves repre

We
shall
to

individual

pursue

only one
men.

branch, that
We substance
are

lead

individual Genus
as

begin by breaking
into
material

the

Summum

ol
men

immaterial, and
attention
then
on

material

beings, we
or

material Bodies have

substances,
into

Bodies. and

break

up

as men Inorganic, and organized bodies, we add Organic to body and obtain the further class of Living things. But

Organic1

thus still
here

It may
sense

be

well to

warn

the

reader
in

that

organic is

not

used

in

the

which

it has

acquired
to

the

vocabulary of

modern

chemistry, but is simply equivalent

organized.

TWO

MEANINGS

OF

SPECIES.

i8t

we to

are

far from

man.

Some

livingthings are
are

sensitive

pain, "c., others pleasure,

not,
as

not.

An

does
a

far

as

we

know, suffer from

and
we

apple-tree dyspepsia,or
in
our

cabbage

from

headaches;

select

pro-

SUBSTANCE

ARBOR

PORPHYRIANA

gress

towards

the human
We thus
our

kind

those

bodies
and

which
man

can

feel
to

pain.

obtain

animals,
But
we

begins
reached

dawn

upon

view.

have

not

i8a

ON

-THE

HEADS

Of

PREDICABLES.

him We
and

yet, and
must
narrow we

we

must

therefore

break

up

animals.

the class
at

by

the addition

of rational,
rational

thus
"f

reach
man.

last the
we

of Infima species
break St. up,

animal

Man

cannot

except

into

individuals,Socrates, Caesar,
"c.

Paul, Shake
is

speare, But

meets difficulty ? Infnna Species Why should

a

here

us.
we

Why
not

man

an

break

him

up

into white and

and
man seem

and

coloured, virtuous
If

and

heathen vicious,

Christian, European, Asiatic,American, African,

Australasian?
we

give

as

the

reason men

that
we

contains
to
we mean

all the

essence

of individual the

be

answering by
essence

beside ? That
does

point.
makes

For

what
to

do

which
not

them

be

they are. parentage, place

what

But

their education, them

to

of birth, "c., contribute

we

make
to

be

what

they
then

are

and

their

formation?

Why
on

should

not

make

lower

classes based examine these

these

considerations

Now, if we
than
are

various

by differentiating qualities
to

which

posed
we

form

classes

narrower

it is pro that of man,

shall find that many

of them be

eliminated
even

by
the be

the fact that individual.

virtuous These A

they
man : are

can

separated
is vicious
may

from

who
a

one

day

may

the

next

heathen

become

Christian.

therefore
and
cannot

vidual
But

there

are

separable accidents of the indi belong to his inner nature. which others not are separable
A

from

the individual.
an

blackamoor
an

can

never

become proper

white,
sense

Asiatic

remains

Asiatic of Asiatic

(in the

of

being

born

in Asia

though

he may

have

parents) even passed seventy years in Europe

INSEPARABLE

ACCIDENTS.

183

or

America.

These the

then

we

may

call

inseparable
sum sense

accidents

of
be

individual, and
his
as

the

united wide

of

them
the
men

may

called

(in a Differentia
he is marked

of

term) inasmuch

off from

other

and by his height,colour, speech, intelligence, other qualities strength, together with all those characterize him as which, taken an collectively,

individual.
But it is not

enough
from
an

that

quality should
or essence

be

inseparableeither
in order
nature. to

individual its

from
or

class,
inner

constitute
be in

it part of
not

It must

only inseparable
It
must

in

fact but
a

also

inseparable
the without

thought.
of his

be

in such
not

relation to
be his

rest

nature

that

it could

changed
nature.

introducing a
are as

contradiction

into

Essences well
we

indivisible,say

scholastic
cannot

as logicians,

immutable. think of

They
them
as

be

changed,
without
an an

and

cannot

changed,
nature,

anomaly presenting
of which has been
test

itself in the reversed.

case

element This

thus in the

then
and

is of

the
classes

of
to

indi dis ask

:

viduals
cover

alike.
essence

In

order
we

what
I

is away

part of their
this
nature
or

must

If

took

that

quality, if
remain attribute attribute if there would then is be such

reversed
same as

it,would
before,
save

their

simply
this
one

the

only
If it

that

has in

disap
be
a

peared
is
no

would, then
essence.

the
But

question general quality

inner

part of the

would
a a

general disturbance,

if there

change belongs
nature.

in
to

the the

whole
essence

nature,
and

part

of

the

t84

ON

THE

HEADS

OF

PREDICABLES.

Now,

if

we

apply
we

this test

to

all the
to

various
break up
one

qualitiesby
man

which

into lower

proposed shall classes,we

conceived
as

above find

that

every

of them
man,
so

might
to

be

reversed

without is

the
an

speak, losing
will
born
not

his

European, he
suppose

have
;
same

identity. If he his nature changed

if he
is
a man

if we

him

in Asia

of talent,
man a

he will still remain

some

the

individual he becomes
as

if

by

strange
is
a

transformation
we can

dullard,

If he

negro,

think

of him
his

remaining
skin

in

all respects

the

same,

though

should

become
will be and

white.
the
same,

If he
even

his identity cross-grained, himself though he overcomes

is
man

becomes

the

sweetest-tempered
any

on

the face

of the
But

earth. if
to
we
man man

take
as

of

the

attributes

which
Take

belong
away different

such, it is quite different.

from

the

facultyof

sensation

and

he

is

of He can perceive none being at once. his life, sustain the things around him, cannot avoid dangers, cannot cannot gather the materials his reason. exercise for general concepts, cannot interlaced with the other faculties This facultyis so in thought that it cannot be separated even of man, all it is with So destroying his nature. make the other qualitieswhich up the concept man, in saying that each therefore justified And are we of the indivi And all of these belong to the essence dual and not are separable from him either in fact or thought. this in other words We by saying express may of the power have of discerning the essences "hat we
without

86

ON

THE

HEADS

OF

PREDICABLES.

the inner

nature

under

the external
are

manifestation

oi

it ; if from
take

we

have

faculties which

different in kind enable

us

those

of the

brutes, and

which

to

cognisance not only of phenomena but of noumena, not only of things transitoryand perishable but oi and of an eternal this doctrine things immutable in our absolute Infima Species, is a necessary element of which philosophical convictions, the absence
"

would dictions
a

involve
and

us

in

number

of

serious

contra

would

render

the whole Mill the

a

attainment human
and
name race.

of Truth

thing impossible to the the other hand, On

whom
we

Bain,1 and
of the

those

to

have concede very

given
with

Modern

Nominalists, truth, but

existence which
which says other
not
are

greater appreciationof
the inconsistency, real or natural kinds, those artificial kinds
"

with

considerable

of what

they call distinguished from

mind fashions
one an

the

for itself. is

real

kind,"

Mill,

"

is

which

classes derivable
cases

by

indefinite each the

distinguishedfrom all multitude of properties

This is
one

from

other." school

of

several
mates

in which Aristotelian

of Mill

to the

he his

does
own

philosophy,but in but thereby the more completely condemn If kinds are do but real, if we system.
the distinctions
which

approxi so doing

recognize
nature, the
an

already

exist

in is

whole

system

of

scholastic

realism

by
to

such
be

acknowledgment
What
that constitutes

virtuallyrecognized
the

true.
save

kinds

is found

in all
1

of those reality the same nature generic or specific the individuals belonging to any one
;

Mill, Logic, i. 137

Bain

Lngv,

i.

69.

CATEGORIES

OR

PREDICAMENTS.

of them attributes

The is
no

identityof what are longer a convenient

is based
on an

called

common

fiction

of

cur

but intelligence, is true

objectivefact, which
takes

independently cognisance of it.

At

of the

which intelligence

the

other

end

of
up

the into

series

to

the

Infima
into
we

Species which
Summum
any

breaks

individuals, is the
be
tree

Genus, which

cannot

broken

up

classes

beyond
as

it. the

In Summum

our

given
not

above
we

have
started

substance from in
our

Genus. does
we

If

had in had

itself,but
accident either else.
as

something which something else,

Summum

exist have

should

Genus.
or

exist If the

in

itself

it must

Everything must inhere in something

the class

former,
or

it falls under

of Sub

stances,
the class

complete
are

incomplete
:

; if the

under latter, and

of Accidents the
two to

and

therefore

Substance
two

Accidents

Summa
one or

Genera, the
other of

allall in

embracing
terrestrial

classes,

which

things capable of being thought belong, since everything has

either else in in that and itself, something else,on may which be it

conceived
an

existence its own, and

or

called

depends
in

in

which
If

it inheres. the

latter, i.e.,if it inheres

an

some

other of that and

object object.
are

it is The

Accident,
Accidents follows

or are :

mode nine

of being
in mode

number,
of either

arrived
can

at

as

Every
an

being
ex

which
presses

be

ascribed

to

object
it,
some or

outside and

something inherent of it,which, however,

it
Tn

in in

something
way
case

affects

characterizes

the

former

the

"88

ON

THE

HEADS

OF

PREDICABLES.

inherent the

mode

of element

being
in

either

proceeds

from

or object (quantity), from its formal element or distinguishing (qualify)^ from the bearing of something within it to some or (relation). For instance, the fact thing without

material

the

that

man

weighs
element

fifteen stone

proceeds
to

from

his of

material

and

belongs

the

category

or quantity ; his wisdom goodness from the character istics determining his nature, and therefore falls under the category of quality ; his being older or younger than his brother is clearlyan instance of his relation of to something outside. If,however, the manner

something external to it,it is derived from something which it works outside of itself (action), from or something
to

being

ascribed

it is

derived

from

which

something which its measure, is regarded as viz., the time when it exists,or the placewhere it exists,or its atti its several tude, that is,the positionin space which
or (passion),

is worked

in it

from

parts occupy.
related
measure, to

Or

last of all that

which

is

externally

is not be something which its it may in some but is attached to it,and so way it
as one

characterizes

of its

surroundingsor belong
of
man are

ings.
derived

For

instance, the so-called Accidents

which

things external to himself or comforting, or helping ; in killing,

from
have

that he
case

is
we

various

forms
or

of

action;

or

else he then he

killed,or comforted,
or

helped,and

being is passive;

is

if his

terized is
the
one

positionin space is described, he is charac far. here or there, near If in time, he or as who belongs to the fourteenth century, or to
his attitude is that
he

present time, whereas

is

CATEGORIES

OR

PREDICAMENTS.

189

sittingdown ling, "c.

dress has
on or a

or

standing
his him
He
to

Finally equipments.
tall form.

or cross-legged, spraw surroundings or belongings

up,

(habitus) adjacent

in

space

constitute with
a

his
or

is armed

rifle
may

hat, or Wellington boots.

\Ve

put

this in tabular

Substance exists in itself

Accident exists in

something I
not

else

Inherent

in the

inherent

in the

object

object

I Quantity, Quality, Relation

measure

I
existingas a merely adjacent of the object to the object

To

: recapitulate

If

we

say

anything

about
we

some

has an object which of its speak either or qualities(qualitas)

existence

of its own,

must

its quantity (quantitas) or its relation (relatid) the things it is doing (actio) it ; what is being around what or done to it (passio) ; of the place (ubi)or time (quando) external of its existence, or of its position (sittis) or

belongings (habitus).
classes
n:ust

These other

form of which
to

the

nine

different
Accident the
ten

under

one

or

every

and fall,

these

added
are

Substance

form

Categories, as
which all

they
or

called

by Aristotle,

under In

ideas

concepts
are

ultimately
any

fall.

scholastic

logic they
and
as

called

preedicamenta or
idea

when

gets

into

190

ON

THE

HEADS

OF

PREDICABLES.

one

of

them
a

it

can

get

no

further, hence

bat

arisen, by

strange freak
of
"

of into

language, the
a

familiar
to

expression
express involved the

getting
in but

predicament,"
of
one

unpleasant

situation

who

has
he

himself fain escape what

or

circumstances
cannot.1

from

which

would
But
ments

is the

difference the

between
Heads of

the

Predica
?

Categories and

Predicables

Categories are a classification of all existing things as they are in themselves, regarded in their mental own being, as the object of our proper ideas, as capable of being introduced or concepts
The

into

our

minds

and if
we

forming part
are

of

our

mental
cate
a

furniture.
gory
tree

Thus,
falls, we
an

asked
at
once

under
"

what is

answer

Tree

sub

has stance, i.e.,

Under the
master

what

independent existence of category does goodness fall ?

the
same

its own."
"

Under
son 01

category of quality." In
falls under

way

relation,to-morrow
ill-treated under

falls under the

the

category
"c. passio,

of

time,

category

of

The
a

Heads

of Predicables of the forms

are,

on

the other hand, is to

classification of the
to each
The

of
our our

thought, that
ideas
or

say, bear
1

various other.
or

relations

concepts
furniture
in the follow

They put
Categories
are

mental

Predicaments
:

enumerated

ing distich
Summa

Quantum, Substantia, Quale, Relatio, Actio, Passio, ubi, Quando, situs,habitus.

iecem
:

The

Greek for the

unology

equivalent, no false quantity

less and

than

the defects

Latin,

requires ar

other

of versification

"4"rl Karrjy6piaf trolov, Trp6t iroffov, oixria, TI,

tal

PREDTCABLES

AND

PREDICAMENTS.

igi

in

order

and

express

the
it.
"

connection

between the

the

ideas of the
our

which mental

constitute

They
the
to

express

kinship
between
under

conceptions
or

connection
our use

concepts aspect

ideas
entia

present
rationis

intellect the

their

of

(to

scholastic their
manu conies

derive expression),that is, as things which human are thought, which being from factured by the mind, though the material from outside. external under

which
classes external
am

They are objects can

which in
our

not

the

classes but

into the of If I fall ? I other I

be ideas

divided,
or

concepts
other.
tree

objects fall
under
compare

respect of each

asked
to

what

predicable
concept
answer

does
tree

have

the
I
can

of the of

with

concepts
answer,

before

question. Tree,
oak,
what
a

is of

genus

in

respect
Under

respect
must

living thing.
classed
me

good be

I cannot what other

mean

answer

in species predicable the question it is to be

until you

tell

with

concept
moral
a as

compared.
is
an

Goodness, if you
of
man,

goodness,
of the from
mark

accident of

but

is

property
it flows essential
reward.

inhabitants that confirmed saints

Heaven,

inasmuch

which sanctity, who have attained

two at
once

is the their classes

of the

There which any

can

are,

however,
classified if

of

concepts
to

be

without

reference

only a sufficient study of the has made matter us acquainted with their essential Genus fixed nature. are Infima Speciesand Summum and have Under absolute, as we already seen.
concept,
what
once :

other

category
it is the

does

man

fall ?

can

answer

at

species which

expresses

the

whole

'9"

ON

THE

HEADS

OF

PREDICABLES.

essential
So does
"

nature

of

the

individuals

contained Under what the

and

it.

again,
Substance

tiger,

oak,
fall ?

eagle.
Here
too

category
is be

reply
can

ready.

Substance

is

Summmn

Genus

nothing

else."
Hence

the

Categories
of

are

sometimes

said
under

to

be

an

enumeration
intentions

things
mind,
As
we

as

they
is,

come

the direct the

first
acts

of

the

that

under above1

our

of

cognition.
are an

explained
of

Prediintentions
in

cables of the

enumeration of indirect relative

the

second

mind,
as

our

-or

reflex

cognitions,
of mutuaJ

asmuch

they
form

are

classification viewed
in

the

concepts
connection

we

of each

things,
other.

their

with

194

ON

DEFINITION.

Summnm

Genus
Hamilton

and and

the

Infima Speciesagainst
moderns,
and and in Mill

Sir

William
on

other

remarked

the

inconsistencyof
of real
as

the

existence

conceding distinguishedfrom artificial

to

Bain

kinds, by which
is subversive

they
of
a

offer
own

truth
modern the

tribute

which

their word

inventions.

said Finally, we Predicaments, the

as our

about

Categories
as

or

enumeration

of all direct

existingthings opposed
to

they
no

are

reflex

object cognitions. We
most

the

of

our now

but

less

proceed to a different important portion of our subject.

fruitful
sources

One

of the

of human of the
has

error

is

misty, indistinct
terms
we use.

apprehension
A
man

of the

often

meaning a general
words he

impression of the ideas conveyed by the employs, without any preciseand accurate
of their true
in his
own sense.

realization the idea

ex

He

has

never

analyzed
to

mind

corresponding

the external

pression of it. He has not asked himself what are its precise limits,whether the word used has more is the connection what than and meanings one,
between these

ledge

of

it

object upon We early morn. object or two;

heaven
cow,
our
or

varying significations. His is like our knowledge of some the horizon, seen through the
are

know

distant
haze is
one

of

not

sure

whether
on

there earth
or

whether it is
a

it is

the
or a

in the
or a

;
a

whether
stunted

horse,
we

donkey,

tree;

judge

of it rather

from

personal experiences of the past, than from any well ascertained data respecting it in the present : hurry to an entirely false conclusion perhaps we fi;a"i ourselves entirely mistaken regarding it and

DANGERS

OF

INDEFINITENESS.

195

as

to

its time

colour, shape, size, position, if

we

at

some

future

have

better

opportunity of studying
use

its nature.

So, too, it is with

to

our

of words from
grasp vague,

we

assign
true

them

qualities altogetherabsent
;
we

the concept of the

they
nature

express

have

no we

definite have
a

of their
minds

object;
that

hazy

notion

in

our

certain

attributes, which

observa

members of the taught us to assign to many class of objects they represent, are really a part oi of those objects, and therefore essential the nature

tion has

included
not

in the

idea

we

have

of them it is so, in
or

but

we

dc
we

feel at all certain

not to

whether
too

whether
neces

may

have all what

been
may

hasty

regarding as
to
some

sary

be

limited

individuals

only,or at least not requisiteto all, and therefore only accidents, separable or inseparable, of the class those individuals to which belong. have in his owr must encountered Every one experience countless instances of error arisingfrom
this
source. man are
"

If

you

tell his

an

uneducated is
a

or

halfwiU hf
can

educated think will touch

to
a

that

soul

substance, he
substance!"
you

you

reply;
or

laughing at him. why a substance

In the
on same

"A is

something
the that
:

feel."

way

Agnostic objects,

personal God
to
us

the

ground
in God.

personalityas
whereas
each
case

known
can error

is

something
limited
an

limited

there the

be

nothing
from

In

arises

inexact and life

notion

of the
Because

essential the
are

of qualities
stances

substance

person.
are

sub
per

of

ordinary
the

thos^

which is

ceptible by

senses,

the

inference

wrongly

196

ON

DEFINITION.

drawn
stance
:

that

palpable
the Atheist
are

is

necessary around
on

quality of
us are

sub

because

persons

limited

beings,the
tion, All

hurries

to

the

false

proposi

the Pro finitebeings. When the talks about untrue testant unscriptural and doctrine of Intention taught by the Catholic Church, he shrinks is generally an the bugbear from which indefinite and undefined something, the true nature

persons

of which

he

has

never

realized of

to himself.

It is the

business
to

Logic
us

in its
to to

capacity of
exact

mental processes

medicine,
of

teach
and

be

in

our

thought,
view

so

avoid
us

the
to

errors

arising from
well-defined

inexactitude. of what that

was

It enables

have

ill-defined before.

It

furnishes what

the

glass

renders
to

sharp
the
means

in its outline

without

it seemed
our

fade away hands

into the of

around. and

It puts into

objects testing
of with

of trying the accuracy ascertaining whether they are

our

concepts, and
in accordance

objectiverealities. the various Among Logic for this end, one

process it has of Definition. for
its

instruments

employed
valuable

by
that
the
not
con

of the most
Its
to

is thf

very mark
to
see

name

implies
or

object
our

out

define

boundaries
intrude
one

of

notions,
the other He

that
so

they

do

upon
our

and who he
a

generate
of

fusion

in

thoughts.
himself the

is in the habit
uses,

of

defining to
the
contents

terms

analyzing
of the
or

of his
mental

ideas,
error.

has

ready

test

presence hates
to
more

of be

Error, mental
the

moral,
there useful

is

no

lightof day, and powerful agent in performing this

dragged
to

WHAT

IS

DEFINITION

197

service, than
us,
answer

the

mental

process
we

which
cannot

demands
set

of
an

with

an

authority
the which

which

aside,

to

question :
you

What
are

is the

exact

nature

of the We

object of
are

thinking or speaking ?
to

thus

brought
what

face
we

face

with

our

own we

thoughts, and thoroughly and

so

previously imagined
we

perfectlyunderstood
obscure far
as

find
us

to to

be the

confused

and

to

expose

danger

of

wandering
is
As

away

from

the

truth

respectingit.
Definition
an an

object.

unfolding of conveyed by human

the
we answer

the

natur6

of it is
:

speech
the
It is
an

expression by which is the object to be What

of that which
up
are

question
It is the
con

defined
be

? what

analysis

makes

it to

it is. the

breaking
cepts
forth that

of

the

concept

into

simpler
It is
a

its constituent of the

any

parts.

setting

of the
in

essence

thing
we

defined.
must

distinguish which the Definition between explains primarily the and that which of the object nature explains primarily of the word, and the nature of the object the nature only in as far as it is explained in the meaning of the
But

defining

object

word.

The

first of these Definition. different

is called
In

the

Real, the second

Real that the Definition which
we case

the Nominal
we use a

giving the
from
In

expression
Definition. such
a an

employ
we

in Nominal
:

former
"c.
;

say

such
and

and such

objectis,
means,

in

the

latter,such
Thus
is a

word

"c.

the

Real

Definition

of
the

triangle is: Triangle

Nominal contains Definition three

three-sided

whereas figure,
a

is :

Triangle

means

figure which

angles.

OiV

DEFINITION.

Real

Definition
to

analyzes
mind.

the
we

notion think
us

of
of
is
a

triangle triangle
three

present
what
sides

the

When

is most rather

prominent
than the three

before

the

angles;
its

it is its threeNominal
we

sidedness

which

constitutes
word

essence.

Definition

explains the
does

ourselves, what

the word

triangle. If trianglemean

ask We

that it means a naturallyanswer figure with three of the three makes think word us angles. The is a further and the three-sidedness angles first,

qualitywhich
I. Nominal
1.

results

from

its

triangularity.
kinds: which
as

Definition
Definition of Thus
a

is of various proper, word

Nominal

explains the
in the

ordinary meaning
mouths

the the

current

of

men.

Nominal

Definition
the
a

of

angel would
Definition
renders
you
a so

be

messenger

(ayyeXos) ;
be you

Nominal
gas which

of

laughing-gas would insensible to pain that

incites to

can

laugh at

it,or
tion

gas

which

generallyis connected has for its Nominal Thus centaur necessarilyso. Definition, A monster half-horse half-man, but this has nothing to do with the etymology of the word. In this firstkind of Nominal Definition do not we
lose

laughter. Such a defini with etymology, but not

sight

of the
are name.

existence

of the
we

object,the
define

name

of which

we

defining; but
Definition which

the

object

through
2.

its

simply explains the word according to its derivation, e.g., Sycophant shewer a in of figs (CTVKOV fyaivat) an ; Lilliputian, habitant who of the island of Lilliput Athlete, one ; contends for a prize; Blueberry, a shrub with

Nominal

REAL

AND

NOMINAL

DEFINITION.

199

berries

on

it.

In and

this

case

we

lose

sight altogether grammatical

break
same or

of the

object

simply
word

think
us.

of the We the

meaning
into other

of the

before elements

it up
some

its constituent

in

language.
or

3. Nominal

Conventional

Definition, which
the word Thus

con

sists in
or

meaning
upon

given

to

by

the

speaker,

agreed

by disputants.

if in

opinions it was growth of a man's the word should be used, not of the compa consistency of opinions held by the same at the same tibility person time, but of the identityof his opinions at different we might call such a definition periods of his life,
the nominal
as

discussing arranged that

opposed

to

real, inasmuch
to

as

it

was

meaning
an

given arbitrarily

the

word, rather

than

analysis of the idea expressed by it. In this a sense man might say that political consistency is virtue, meaning that the opinions of wise a doubtful if we modified use men are con by time ; whereas sistencyin its ordinary application to the opinions
held

simultaneously,the
the doctrines

absence which
In

of it would merited
same

at

once
accu

condemn

thus the

the
if

sation writer
to
a

of
or

inconsistency.
school of writers

way

some

word its thus

from word

meaning give their own in general use, turning it aside somewhat ordinary application,the definition of the
used this would third be class
a

nominal of which

one,
we

and
are

would

fall under

speak
talk of

ing.

For

instance, when

moral

theologians

of opinions not as meaning they are probability more likelyto be true than false,but that there is for sclid some maintaining them, even ground

2uo

ON

DEFINITION.

though
would
word

the

ground
definition Nominal
not
sense

for

denying

them

be

no

less
sense

solid, the
be
a

of

probabilityin

this
as

Definition, inasmuch
in the

the

is used
common

ordinary meaning
attaches
to to

which

the

of mankind

the

word,

but in another in

attached specially

it

by

the authors

question. II. Passing on to Real Definition,we observe in general that its object is to unfold primarily the that if it also of the thing defined, and nature the explains the meaning of the word, it is because of men word accurately represents in the minds the nature But of the object for which it stands. the nature of the object is a wide term, and may if be taken almost unlimited to include an territory it is used in its widest signification.A thorough knowledge knowledge
causes

of any a object includes of its history,of its first origin, of the

nature

of the

that

produced
has it is

it, of the
influenced
of

end its

for

which

it

exists, of
of all that
accidents hereafter has
no

all that

capable

that

have

befallen

development, of the various effecting, it,nay, of all that may

future. The field

thorough knowledge of the of an nature object is possible only to a being oi an altogether higher order to ourselves. Take, for of man. What example, the nature a miserably is possessed nature imperfect knowledge of human even by those who have the deepest insightinto it ! infinitesimal What an portion of its ten thousand is possessed by the wisest of possible variations
a men

change or limits, and

affect it in the

If

we

are

to

sound

it to

the

lowest

depths

toa

ON

DEFINITION.

and

these

we

find
or

will

fall

naturally into

three

different
may
I.

heads

classes, into which

real definition

be

divided. Accidental

Description, or
not

Definition, which

gives
stances

the

essential

characteristics

constituting
circum
it off may
to

the nature

object defined, but serve attaching to it which objects. These

which
case

of the

certain mark

from
be

all other
:

circumstances

either

in (a) Properties,

approaches
as
:

Man

is

nearly to Definition a being composed of body

the

description so-called, strictly

and

the

soul, and

possessed of

facultyof articulate speech; or, Man is a biped, is an who cooks his food, or, Man animal virtue or vice. capableof practising (b) Accidents, which, though separatelycommon other the to thing defined, yet objects beside
combined with

together,mark
:

it, as
with

Man brain he

form, found
whose
or

exactly co-extensive is a biped, resembling a monkey in proportionately larger than that of

limits

the class to which between the is

A Ibatross is a bird belongs ; or, An joth and ^.oth degreeof south latitude,

plumage
whose

ofglossywhiteness
ten

streaked
or

with

brown

feetfrom the readers of Coleridge's tip to tip,and Ancient Mariner lion is one ; or, A of the chiefquad and used in brave, and roaring terribly, rupeds, fierce, Holy Scripture to illustrate the savage malice of the devil; or, Mangold-wurzel is a kind of beet-root commonly used as food for cattle ; or, A cricket is an
green,
t

wings measure familiar to

eleven

insect allied noise with the

to

the

covers

that grasshopper, of its wings.

makes

chirping

DESCRIPTION

OR

ACCIDENTAL

DEFINITION.

203

This than which

are

kind

of definition

belongs

to

rhetoric, rather

to

philosophy. It is the only sort of definition be given of individual can objects, since they
from other
members

discerned

of the

class

to
as

which
The

they belong only by

Duke with

these
an

accidental

marks,

of Wellington was
great distinction
Waterloo saved

fought
a

in

English general,who Spain and the Low

crushed finally Noah
all his
was

Countries decisive

against Napoleon, and

battle at
was

him

in

or,

the builder the

of

the Ark, who

or,

with

family from
Roman
at

Deluge;

Marcus

Curtius

was

of good
the
com

family,who jumped mand of the orade.

The
to
are

into

the

gulf

at

Rome

various off the

circumstances

which be
defined

may

combine all else

mark almost

object
in
causes

to

from

unlimited the

number.
gave

Sometimes it its

they
for

consist

in

which

origin,as,
God
Him with

instance,
the slime rational the

Man

is the

being created by Almighty

and

from
a

of
soul
"

ground,
God

endowed

by

here the the head

is the the

cause efficient

of
cause,

man,

slime

of soul

ground

material
or,

the

rational

formal
and

cause;

bust is

figure

consisting of of
some

shoulders
a

made

afterthe

likeness
"

human

being by
is the
;

the sculptor is the

who which
ment

or sculptor statuary here and the human being efficient cause, causa or excmplaris, pattern

is

copied

after

it is made which is
a

or,

clock is
the time

mechanical
to

instru
car;
serve

is to indicate

eye

or

or,

Man

being
so

created
to

to

praise,revere,
eternal

and

his the the

Creator, and

attain
and

where happiness, of God

are

marking
final
causes

of

time

the
and
man

service

of clock

respectively. Some-

ON

DEFINITION.

times

it

gives
which
is
a

the
cases curve

manner

in

which
a

it

comes

intc

being, in
as, A

it is called traced

cusp
as

circle

along a a curve generated by the round a fixedcentre. revolving

2.

it travels

by some line ; straight extremityof a gives

which the

Definition, genetic fixedpoint in a

or,

circle is

straightline
nature

Essential

Definition

real

of
it is,
com

the

object,sets
it up But

forth that

makes

it what
it is

breaks

into the various these

parts of which
from the
case

posed.
can

parts may
the in
one

either be those

which
can

be

separated

other, and

actually exist apart, the physicalparts of

able in fact, and
case can are

called they are the object,or they are insepar only be separated in thought, ii called

which

which
the

they
case

former

it is the
as,

metaphysical parts, actual object which

we

ir is
man

actuallydivided,
into
a

for instance, if
and
an

divide

rational

soul

latter it is the into if

we

idea of
which

the

ideas
man

organized body. In the is broken the object which up it,as, for instance, composed
and animal.

divide

into rational

meta Corresponding to these physical and have kinds of Defini two we physical components the breaks tion, viz.,Physical Definition,which up thing defined into its physicalparts, and Metaphysical breaks into Definition,which up the thing defined

metaphysical parts. Physical Definition does not the of merit Definition name properly so-called, since in Logic we have deal with the external to object as presented to us in intellectual cognition,
and intellectual idea of

its

essential

with the cognition as concerned the object,not with the object as

PHYSICAL

DEFINITION.

203

it

exists of the
I

in the
sense.

external
As
a

world

and

comes

within

the
to

range with order.

logician I
parts
of
man

have in
on

nothing
the the united

do

component
have
no

physical question
in

claim

to

decide
are

of

the

simpler
nature.

elements
I
am

which

his the
;

composite
component

concerned
as

only
and

with

parts

of

man

he

exists

in the

mind

primarilyin
of
reason can

the mind

of his Creator, who

or

secondarily
of

all rational form

beings,
an

by
which

their

possession image
in the

idea
to

intellectual exists

of

man,

corresponding
God.

that

mind

of

Physical

Definition
"

is

rather description

than
are

it gives definition proper accidents or propertiesof

characteristics the
make
a

which its
to
a

object
its

under

logical
what

aspect,
it is.

not

those

which

nature

be

Sometimes

it is not
as

real,but only

nominal

definition, inasmuch
to

it
as

analyzes,not
the

the

object
and

be

defined

so as

much
an

word,

as

if I define

acid hydrochloric chlorine.

3. Last

acid

composed of hydrogen
to

of

all

we

come

Definition
we

proper,
not

or

Logical
to
its
an

Definition.
up
our

In

definition the

do

attempt
into
be

break

idea

of

object
the

to

be

defined

simplest
endless

constituent

elements, for this would

to

task,

but

give

higher class, (or

which it comes,

proximategenus as it is called),under the distinguishingcharacteristic and

which

(or differentia)
classes

separates
under
at

it from the

the other
But

subordinate
we

coming
little for
us. more

genus. what

must

explain

length

it is that

Definition

does

to6

ON

DEFINITION.

All consists
not to

error

respecting the attributingto in denying or

in it ; or,
as

nature

of

any

object
it does

in

it

which qualities
that
at
we are

possess, be

to it those
we

really
com

found

remarked

the
may
or

mencement

of
in
a

the

present

chapter,

be

involved

vague

uncertainty whether

this

that

In this latter case our qualitybelong to it or not. knowledge is defective,rather than erroneous ; and affirm or deny anything con do not so long as we cerning it of which we are not certain,but suspend our judgment, we are ignorant rather than mistaken, if we do not and only exercise a prudent reserve, is commit ourselves respecting any object which beyond our reach. But and error ignorance alike are evils which philosophy seeks to abolish, and though it is not

logic ex professo to add to the material of our knowledge, yet it plays a most laws which important part by laying down regulate all intellectual acts correctlyperformed. If it does add not to cur knowledge, it guides us in adding to our knowledge, and furnishes us with varied means of detecting the error human which in our frailty
the business of
we

unwittinglyadopted as a part furniture. It drags the impostor to

us

have

of
the

our

mental

enables

to

see

that It

he
warns

is not
us

clad that

in
we

light,and the wedding

must cast

garment
him
forth

of truth.
into the

outer

darkness the

of the
mist

realm has
our

of
so

falsehood.

It clears him
to

away

which
in

long
oess,

enabled

lurk him

undisturbed
in his naked

in

and telligence,

shows
to

hideous-

in contrast

the

fair

children

of

light.

It

VARIOUS

MEANINGS

OF

THE

WORD

IMPOSSIBLE.

207

quickens
is
one

that

of the
of

perception we enjoy as privileges

and
ever

instinctive

of truth
the

which
of
or

children of sin

the

God

truth,
can

which

no

amount

wilful it may

blindness deaden the this

and

wholly eradicate, though and hinder or impair its power

of it. service rendered

thwart
In

exercise

invaluable
very

by Logic,
If
men

Definition would

plays a only define

of
It

important
terms

part.
would

their

they
that
are

escape

three-fourths the and world. undefined

the

fallacies

prevalent
are

in

is because that

their

notions

they so often go astray. misled it are by analogy of meaning and confuse will illustrate cur with We identity of meaning. of the word meaning by the various uses Impossible. When the Unbeliever objects to the doctrine of the
Real that
be
at

misty They

Presence

in the

Blessed
our

Sacrament

of the Altar

it is the
on

that impossible
same

Lord's and

Body
in the
on

should
Sacred want

time

in

Heaven

objection is based of any clear perception of the various the word forgets that impossible. He
Host

earth, his

the

meanings
the
term

of is is

employed
a

in

different

senses

between
be

which

there

must analogy, but which tinguished from each other. If I were to give the letters all in a heap to a blind man

certain

dis carefully

of and

the tell
on

alphabet
him
to

lay
at

them

out
were

on

the
find proper
one

floor, and,
that

looking
arranged
at
once

them,
that
to

to

they

had

themselves

in

their

order, I should

gather
he
were

some

had

guided
had
so

his

hand. them-

If

assert

that

they

arranged

*ob

ON

DEFINITION.

refuse to believe it,and by chance, I should by quite impossible. I should mean say that it was that it was this not impossible,but that it absolutely was so impossible as to be morally or practically is nothing to prevent impossible. There in the order from presenting themselves

selves

the letters
a,

b,

c,

d,

"c.,
do say,

any

more

than
to assume,

in

the but

order

they practically
I
was so

happen
and

nevertheless

should
im
over

say

that possible, whelming against any the

assertion that

rightly,that the is, that

one

the
chances

thing
are as come

arrangement
not

to

justify
about

it could

have

without
But
I

design.
the
sense

of the word

is very
man

different who in
an

when been

say

that from

it is his
his

blind

that a impossible youth should be

eyes in
a

has

cured

instant
Here

by washing
I do
not

fountain it is

of water.

mean

merely
a cure

that

highly improbable,
variance in
a

but that

such

is

altogetherat
that

with

the

ascertained Author He and

laws

of nature.

If I believe
it is

Personal

of these made shall

not

laws, I believe
them
can

who
I

dismiss the

possiblethat interrupt their operation, without investigationthe

of
their have this sudden
cure,

statement,
which is the

that

occasion with

is irreconcileable

ordinary working,
never seen

bathing

the

eyes

that

the

which has the spring or fountain this case I In being miraculous. mean not so by impossible utterlyimprobable under and loose to be in a wide as ordinary circumstances sense impossible, but actually in contradiction with

light,in some reputation of

certain

ir

disestablished laws

which

govern

the natural

9io

OAT

DEFINITION.

has
tance

realized
of

the

work

of Definition
at
once

Definition, will
of

ask He

impor himself: What

will break it up

and

the

is the

meaning
elements it to be

? impossible of which

into the
discover

an

event

composed : he will universal opposed to some

it is

Pondering within himself he will soon recog nize that the first meaning I have attached to it,as parlance indicatingsomething so rare as in common does the name, not to deserve properly belong to it that the second at all ; and requires some expla law be sus universal as a nation, inasmuch may of the law, and pended or annulled by the Maker
law.
that the and

it is
nature

only
of

when

it

means

things that literal signification of

a

it that

something opposed to has its strict,proper,

which
be
cannot

be.
use, must

But

definition, if it is
When
ideas it breaks that
to

to

of any

be exact. the

up

any

simpler
so

compose
a

complex it,we must

We material

idea
see

into that
see

it does
that

according

fixed
or

rule.

must

it consists

of the

genus

part of the

itsformal and dis or complete idea, and the differentia Our definition must, at least as tinguishingelement. far as this, make the idea of the object defined a
clear
one.

We

cannot

expect

absolute

perfectionin
We
or

the

clearness
be

that
to
we

is furnished attain break

to
an

by Definition.
absolute

cannot

said unless

perfect
into it.

clearness each and

must

up

the

complex
that

idea

all of the
not

simple ideas
to

compose

We
genus

and until

only be able but differentia,

we come

produce the proximate also to analyze each of

genus
a

these further

to

that

admits
a

of

no

analysis.

If I define

as ligature

bandage

DEFINITION

IN

PRACTICE.

"ii

used

for tying up veins definition. Bandage is

of the definition marks this which
But

and the

I give arteries,

correct

rest

teristic

proximate genus, and the charac gives the distinguishing off a ligature from all other
is but that the
at
once

bandages.
process is
: :

beginning
suggests

of

the itself
a

the

question
that

What

is the say

definition

of

bandage ?

I reflect
some

little and similar have

now

material

got
the

Bandage is a stripof cloth or used for the binding up of wounds. a long step further, but I am
is necessary
to

I way
to

off from absolute definition

pronounce
are

complete analysiswhich
I
must

clearness. of cloth.
be
at
a

be
some

able

give a

correct

After
woven

little hesitation

it to Now

substance I
am

of which garments
to
see

made.

last

beginning
asks
me

day
sub his

light.
stance,

If my
I

interlocutor
a

to

define

have
and

right

to

send

him is

about
a

business,
genus, and

tell him

that

substance of
be

summum

therefore

incapable
chooses
to

definition.

But
exact

he of

may
me an

still,if he

captious,

that composed analysis of all the words the definition,i.e. of strip, It wounds, and garments. is only when of I have mounted up by a succession and the summum (which steps to the differentia genus in each
I
can

case

will

be
to

substance)
have

of

each
a

of

these,
oi

that

be

said

furnished

definition

which is perfectly free from clear and ligature, any of obscurity or confusion. possibility In practice, however, this ultimate analysis is

impossible,and
and

to

require
done

it would
my

be

unnecessary defined

vexatious.

I have I

duty,
the
two

I have

the

object,when

have

given

constituents

"la

ON

DEFINITION.

of its essence, It may

and

the

proximate genus
be necessary
to

and go

the
a

sometimes

differentia* step further,

this is
;
no

define

this

proximate
as one

genus.

But
to

part of my
is
a

business

called upon

define

it

piece of superfluous generosity,for the sake of enabling my reader to form a clear conception of I use. Thus if I define the meaning of the words
a or screw as a

cylinderwith
must

spiralgroove pity
go
on

on

its outer define

a

inner

surface,I
else my

in

to

or cylinder,

listener than

will in all

probabilitybe
of Defi

not

one

bit the wiser

we

before. the nature

But

shall better

understand certain
to
a

nition

by laying down
is necessary
an

rules, the

observance

of which
are

good

definition.

but

analysis of
in other words genus

what

Definition

is :

They they do give

the
and

but declare

that all Definition

must

the

proximate
which

of the

thing defined,
it from

differentia

separates

all other

But at the same coming under the genus. are decidedly useful as practicalguides ; and,
over,

species time they

more

without which also

we

them should the

at

we

should
excluded

be

liable to from
a

employ

words

be

Definition. definitions
to

They
which

show should

correctness

of

some

first

sight be
them
a

inclined the

declare would

inadmissible, and
be

without
in
same

beginner
which

exposed

to

errors

process time
most

is full of
to

and difficulties,
correct

at

the

important

thinking.
rules
i.
are

These

three

in number.

Rule the
move

Definitionmust be that is, it must thing defined,

nor

The

co-extensive include
a

with

neither

less, else it would

not

be

definition

of

DIFFICULTIES

OF

DEFINITION.

si;

that else.
many

which This

it undertakes rule
seems

to

define, but

of

something
but
easy
errors.

obvious

enough,
very grave

like
to

things that are neglect it in practice

Thus
or

obvious, it is
and
common so

fall into

if

we

take
a

the

definition

of wizard, have
be

witch, as

person who
the there

has
a

or

is

supposed to
would
persons enemy
or

dealingswith
too

devil, such
may

definition
many

wide,
some are

as

be with

who of souls

have who

communication
not

the

in

any

sense

wizards

witches. in
some

Or,
modern

if

we

take

another

definition
a

found is
a

dictionaries, that
is

witch

person

who

has

or

supposed to
a as

have

powers,
extensive miracles miracles define
a

such

definition

supernaturalor magical would again be far too

all those
or

it would
the
power

include of

who whom

work such
we

by
are

God,

to

attributed.
as one

If, on

the

other

hand,

witch

who

exercises

magical powers
would be of with

to too

the detriment
narrow,
as

of others, this
there
may

definition

be them

persons

possessed
not

such
any

powers

who

exercise
on

for

gain, and

sinister

design again,

their I

fellow-creatures.

and the art Logic as science of reasoning, I am limiting Logic to only of the three ex one operations of thought, I am it most the over cluding from unjustly all control

So,

if

define

formation nition I is

of ideas

and

of
narrow.

judgments,
If,on
or

and the

my

defi

altogether too
it
as

contrary,

define
to

the
to
a

science

art

which
I

guides
extend

the

mind

attain

altogether beyond
all other sciences

knowledge of truth, its sphere. I make

for what

it

it include
aim and

whatever,

is the

ON

DEFINITION.

object botany
all set

of

every

science

save

to

lead

man

to

the

attainment
and

of truth ?

Theology and mathematics, and ethics, metaphysics, astronomy

before
so

this end

themselves.

Yet

this

defi
a a

nition, though
hair's breadth
science

utterly incorrect,
the true Definition
mind

varies
:

but is

from

Logic

(or art) which

guides the

in its attainment

of truth.
It is often
to sible,
or exceedingly difficult,
even

impos

know

whether

our

definition is co-extensive

falls not The so difficulty thing defined. much on ascertaining the proximate genus, as on making sure that the differentia reallydifferentiates with the this class from it does
not

all others
out
some

under

the

genus,

and

that who

shut
to

of the

individuals

reallybelong
familiar
Gulliver's
some
:

it. is
a

Take rational fiction

of all definitions
animal.
to

the most
suppose

Man

Let

us

curious

be

true,

and

that

in

planets there is a true Laputa inhabited then becomes What and Yahoos. by Houyhnhnms of our definition ? The is a rational Houyhnhnm should have We animal, but certainlynot a man. to the further distinguishing definition some to add defi mark the exclude from to our Houyhnhnm nition of man. Our of our justification present definition is that on this earth, at all events, there
of the
are

not

any

other

rational of
to

animals

than

man,

and

that from
If the
we

the

possession
Or the the
sun

reason

all around.

take
as a

define

distinguishes rnan case a more : practical luminous body forming

we

centre

of

material

universe,

'cannot

be

absolutelycertain

of tiie correctness

of

our

differ-

SECOND

RULE

OF

DEFINIIION.

"3

entia.
is but
a

It may

be

that

the whole

of

our

solar

system
that
more

the

sun

central that
we

portion of some larger system, and is but a planet revolving round some it is dependent. All body on which
can

then
our

do

is to

define

up

to

the

limits

of

present
to
us.

knowledge
If I define Catholic with
were

and the

within

the
as

sphere

familiar
Ruler
not

Pope
on

the

Supreme
would Lord's

of
macy
as

the

Church
my

earth, this
of
our over

interfere

recognition
to
return

Supre

if He

and
He

rule

His
a

people,

the
on

Millenarians earth.
2.

believe

will, for

thousand

years

Rule
more

be in itself clearer must Definition familiar than the thing defined. in itself In this rule the words of great are The
a

and

im

portance, for many

more

definition

is to

difficult and
reason

than unintelligible

ordinary mortals the thing defined

of cultivation understands rational

by
Man the

of their

ignorance
defined. the
sort

and

want

thing meaning of
conveys
no a a screw

is the

Every
man,

child
to

word

whom
Most

being
know vvould

of

meaning.

people
man

what have the

is, but

only
of have

an

educated its
nature

clearer
we

notion

after

hearing
few
art

definition
we

given
will

above.

Very
in

of and

us,

though

may

fancy

ourselves find

versed

cognisant

of its nature, when

we are

ourselves that it is

much
a

enlightened
if

informed

productivehabit, acting
we

in

accordance
to

with define

reason.

Yet

ourselves

were

asked

art,
to

we

should
so.

prcbably find Our knowledge

and indistinct

ourselves of
one

utterly unable
is
are an

do

its character which

we

utterly
to

vague

unable

ti6

ON

DEFINITION.

analyze.
a

How

many

there

are

who, if they
of
some

are

asked

question respecting the answer by an enumeration

viduals If you will

character of the the

genus

object,
or

classes
or

indi

of which
ask
a :

it forms

the

species. of thing.
a

child

what

he

means

by
viewed

an

animal, he

answer

Oh, dogs and

break up the

and horses, idea

that sort
as

Unable

to

meta

physical whole into its metaphysical parts, he will break and it up into regard it as a logical whole of its logical parts. Instead of splitting some up into simpler ideas, he will separate the the idea
wider will class into
some

of the

narrower or

classes.

He

regard it, not in its sion, but in its extension

it contains, but
He

intension
;

he
area

will
over

comprehen give you, not

which it is
not

what

the
at

spread.
the and easier But He aims

will look
the

it in

the
is
so

concrete, much it.

in

abstract, and
that
we

process wonder

simpler

cannot not

at

this will
at

do

for the

mental

philosopher.
think
is the

correct

correctly without
road
to correct

can thinking,and no one the habit of analysis, which

Definition.

At

the

same

time

it is

enormously fostered by the involves,and by the exactness

duces.
must

effort of

which
mind

Definition that
about it pro

If I
know

am

to

have is its

sound

views

art, I
are

what of
success.

object, and
The
true
me

what

the
art

conditions
here
comes

definition

of

in
to

to

assist

necessary
or

determine
is

whether
an

is wonderfully, and for instance, logic,

or a

political economy,
what
a

art

science,
the
true
mere

or

both

and
and

is necessary other

to

constitute

artist ;

thousand

questions

which

txB

ON

DEFINITION.

knowledge
This
as a

of the

nature

of the if
we

thing to
were

be

denned.
man

rule would
human

be

broken

to define
man

being,since
of human,
the solar

the
or

idea

of

is involved
sun as

in

the

idea

if The

we

defined

the

centre
as a

of

system.

definition
or

of network

reticulated system of cordage,

decussated between this law,

as

the

sins against pointsof intersection, reticulated

net.

the

word

includes

the word been

to
on a

An Dr.

given by
Committee

equivalent for said to have amusing definition, Wilberforce, the Bishop of Oxford,
House

the

Latin

of the

of Commons,

sitting
of
to

question,is a good this kind of fault in defining. He he wrote define Archdeacon, and on a
some

Church

illustration
was

asked

slip of

paper

the
is
an

following ingenious
ecclesiastical

answer:

An

Archdeacon it is
to

dignitary,whose perform archidiaconal functions.

This form
we

business

kind

of Defective
is called
one a

Definition

often takes

the

of what

vicious circle ; that is to say

first define

idea

by

combination

of other then
in define

ideas which
one

is co-extensive

with which
For

it,and
was

of

these
to

by
be

the

idea

the
we

first
define

instance
a

defined.

instance, if

sovereignas a gold coin equal in value to twenty and the value of a when asked to define shillings, that it is the twentieth part of a answer shilling, If we enough. sovereign,the circle is obvious
desire to
know
we

which have
to

of the
ask

two

definitions what
most

is the

faultyone,
of monetary

ourselves

is the unit

value, or
to

approaches

nearly to
of men,

it

according

the the

this will be

ordinary agreement idea simpler and more

and in

familiar

DEFINITION

BY

SYNONYM.

219

Thus itself.
sums even our

penny

is

by

common we see a

consent

in small

English unit, as

in

pence,

speaking of sums eighteen pence,

as a

above "c.
In

using it by our fifteen shilling,

on

America,
smaller and
a sums

the
are

other

hand, it is the half,

a

dollar, and
a

reckoned

quarter,
as
a

dime.

So

again,

if I define

day

period of
then I
an

time hour

consisting
as same

of twenty-four hours, twenty-fourth part of Here fault. again we

tion, and
here
more a

and
a

tlte

day,
have
to

commit ask will that

a

the similar show the

us

ques

little consideration is the

that is
to
a

the

unit

day,

and

hour

idea, that has complex and elaborate defined by the portion of time that is marked for us by the risingand the setting sun. This rule is also transgressed if we define a

be
out

term
as

by

Synonym.
be

To
a

define violation

sin

as

iniquityor
law. Or

would trespass, define

of the

to

oblivion as forgetor dyspepsiaas indigestion^ remission, or or forgiveness as banquet as fulness,

or feast,

laundress

as

washerwoman. for the

These
most

are

not

definitions, but
some

translations from

part

of

word

borrowed incorrect has

a

another

language,
It is

and

often rather
one

translations. word is

language
in another.

rt

There True

rarelythat exactly corresponding to delicate generally some

are

shade

of difference.
to

synonyms

very

seldom

found, and
also the tion and

first

the

generallyviolates by synonyms rule of good definition,since the defini thing defined are scarcelyever perfectly
define

co-extensive.
We also

transgress

this

rule

if

we

define

by

tao

ON

DEFINITION

Negative
absence
or a a man.

for

instance, if

we

define

vice

as

the

of virtue, or sickness as dwarf as one who has not

We any
can never

the absence
the

of health,
o a

ordinary stature
true nature

learn

the

of

thing by
But ideas ?

explanation of
is to in this be
case

what in the

it is not.
case

what
Is not

done

of

Negative

Definition
were

necessarily Nega

tive ? It would but

a

be, if they

negative idea is not It is at all,it is merely the negation of an idea. therefore and a non-entity,something not existing, All that we do is to can incapable of definition.
state

capable of a definition, properly speaking an idea

that

of which it

it is the

negation, and

thus

we

describe

definition. according to the test of our For instance, we explain darkness as the absence of weakness as the absence of strength. do not We or light,
define
we

in

the

strict and

proper

sense

of the

term,

simply give a descriptionof what is of its own nature incapable of being defined. A Negative Definition,however, is very useful in clearingthe ground and guarding against confusion.
When
I
am

told in the

pulpitthat
the
events

should of my

aim

at

indifference respecting all

am

life,I

liable

to

mistake

the

he

clearly guards himself fication of indifference, which must explain what he does
grasp
state must to

preacher's meaning unless against the negative signi

is the obvious
not
mean can one.

He I
can a

before
see

what of

he

does
at

mean, I

and
am

that
to

it is
He
mean

mind
me

which understand

bound he the

aim.
not

make recommend of

that
in

does
sense

indifference interest
in

of
or a

an

absence

things

around

me,

sort

THIRD

RULE

OF

DEFINITION.

aai

of

scepticalcarelessness
or a

hood,
others. Rule
used

selfish

respecting truth and false disregard of the happiness of

be

3.

The

Definitionmust
proper
the
sense. use

composed of
all
or

words

in their strict and

This

rule

forbids

of

metaphors,
far-fetched

equivocations, ambiguities, obscure expressions in a definition. avoid must (a) As we metaphors

so we

in

discussion,
a

must

avoid this
are an

them for the

nition,

and

carefullyin that simple reason

most

defi
exact

definitions cussion. finds that

essential
an

part

of

an

exact

dis he

Very
he is

often

ingenious disputant,if

in an will being worsted argument, throw in some plausible metaphor under colour of evident. Thus a making his meaning more specious

objection
be raised is like the

to
on

exactness

of detail that

in

some

dispute

may

the

ground
of the effect

such

minute

exactness

work

pre-Raphaelite painter,who
of his

spoilsthe
that the
every

general
leaf
and

picture by insisting
shall be
same

every

flower
In

given
we

with hear

greatest

precision.
in in that tint
one

the

way

diversityof opinion
on

matters

of the

religiondefended
of
and and
are

the

ground
and into

nature

diversities flowers

and

size

among

the

shape foliage
infi

combine

harmonious
a

whole,

nitelypreferable to
shall have
to

monotonous

occasion

when

we

come

fallacies

give

other
as

instances

uniformity. We to speak of the of the danger of

At
stress

treating metaphors give

it
as
a

arguments.

present
on

we

reason

for

laying great

exclud

ing them

from

definitions.

2*3

ON

DEFINITION

But
word in

what
a

is

metaphor ?
sense,

It is the

use

of

transferred
to

the transference
to

being
some

from other
tion order

the order
order.

which

it

properly belongs
the the

Thus,
virtue, I
word

if I define
am

of

all

humilityas transferring to
which

founda
moral

belongs to the is primarily applicable to material a order, and I building. If I define a lion as the king of beasts, of royalty from the notion rational am transferring The sort of objection to irrational creatures. same would hold to the following definitions : The virtues the eddies of amid the stepping-stones to Heaven are passionand the whirlpools of temptation. Logic is the medicine Friendship is the link which of the mind. binds together hearts into one. A wiseacre is one two
the

foundation

follyis a caricature of wisdom. It is not defini a always easy to say whether The instance tion includes I a metaphor or not. have The illustration of this. just given is an
worst

whose

word

caricature,though it primarily belongs

order
are

to

the the

material defects

and

a portraitin signifies

which

grossly exaggerated, has nevertheless been consent to express a cor adopted by common responding meaning in the moral order. also avoid must (b) We equivocations or ambi guitiesin
admit
a

definition

that

is, expressions which

from each
other.

of two
a

meanings
Conservative

different
as a

who upholds politician the doubtfulvirtue of consistency, the double meaning we attaching to the word consistency of which have already spoken is an objection to my defini tion. If I define the possession of the as Liberality
" "

If I define

AMBIGUITIES

TO

BE

AVOIDED.

223

true

Catholic is

Catholic
an

the spirit, ambiguity the So to mislead. likely

of

the

word of

definition

Oxford Professoror Tutor as a would be liable to misconception

familiar and
use

Universitytrainer
on

account

of the diet

of trainer of those

for

one

who take

regulatesthe
part
in

exercise

who

athletic

contests.

This tion where

are

is

flaw
two

very

easilyoverlooked
of the word
to
one

in

defini

the

meanings
the Science

employed
If I define defi

very

closely akin
as

another.

Moral nition in the

Theology
would idea be

the of Casuistry,
to

misleading

those

who

include

casuistrysomething of a tendency to If I were splithairs in questions of conscience. the the faculty which human will as define is to be a necessarily influencedby motives, there would
double

of

ambiguity
means

; first of all in the

use cause

of the of

word action

motive, which
that urges

sometimes
one use mean

compels,
;

sometimes in the
may
or

that

and

also

of

only suggests and the words necessarily

the be influence resisted when is

which influenced, always present it is

that

that

it cannot

present.
must

(c) We

also

avoid

obscure

or

far-fetched

expressions, as, for instance, the definition of fine as a pecuniary mulct, or of a duck as a domesticated ratioci mallard, or of Logic as the art of systematized nation, or of Philosophy as the science which renders of Eloquence as the essential or objective, subjectivity outcome of a combination of natural fluency and rheto
rical cultivation. We

must,

then,

employ

words

in

ordinary

use

124

ON

DEFINITION.

in

our

own

day
of
which

and

in

our

own

country,

words

the
to

meaning
average

shall
that make that all

be
will known

generally
not

intelligible
or

men,

words

confuse
to

perplex signifi

them,
cation
This

but of

simply
the word like

them

the

we

are'defining.
rest, of
a

rule,

the

is sound and

included definition.
the

in

the If

essential

characteristics the

we

give

proximate
cannot

genus well

ultimate
obscure

differentia, words,
these than
defined. since

we

give
that

far-fetched the
and the words

or

we

have

seen

expressing
more

are

in word

themselves which

simpler
expresses

familiar
to

the

thing
to

be

So,
or

again,
to

it

is

impossible
which

define is

by
co

Synonym,
extensive remember
should bear.

give
the

definition

not

with the Yet

thing
character these

defined,
which

as

long
a

as

we

true

definition useful in

rules

are

always
different put
in

helping
which

us

to

guard
is defect

against
liable,
that
has
and

the
to

perils
finger

to

Definition

our

at

once

on

any

crept

unawares,

226

ON

DIVISION.

From the
one

Definition
and the

we

pass process
an

on

to

Division.
a

Both

other

the whole
into

into
more are

its parts,

breaking up of analysisof the complex

is

the

simple.
at

This

they have
as

in

common

yet they
tion

the
to
a

same

time,
other.

processes,

diame
Defini
as

trically opposed regards

that
as

each

That

which

whole, Division
Division from its declares

regards
to

the
more

part;

which

be

complex, Definition
declares
In
we

opposite point of view

apparent
various
we

to be
to

more

simple.
this

order

understand ourselves

anomaly,
kinds

must

remind

of the

of

and totality,

the different
whole do
we

senses

in which

employ
that

the words What which

and
mean some

part.

by

whole

We

mean

unity,but is never theless But be unity may capable of division. kinds : there is actual unity and of various potential unity,and actual unity may either be physicalunity or metaphysical unity.
possesses
sort

of

Unity
made
up

is

said

to

be

actual

when

the

whole

is

another. actually united to one When they are things reallyjoined together in the have what is called physical physical universe, we

of parts

unity, and
whole,
But of

the

whole Thus

so

formed
human
are

is said

to

be

whole. physical which

the

the
limbs

the whole

when

consists

body is a physical the physical parts. of things which are

way

distinct, not
conceive

but only really,

in the

in which
a

we

of them,
and

then
the

the

whole
are

is called
said
to

meta meta

whole, physical physical parts.

parts

be
a

It is also

sometimes

called

whole

ACTUAL

AND

POTENTIAL

WHOLES

327

of
is

comprehension. Thus a metaphysical whole

different
up

animal

nature,

or

consisting of
We
we

animality, metaphysical
of these break
one

parts, viz., life and

as

sensation. each

think
cannot

from into

other, but
and
are

animality
from
we

them,

put
not
an

them

apart

the
cannot

other. divide

They
the

actually separable,
animal from the
two

life of
can

its
in

capacity for thought, but

Unity
the in
but

sensation
not

; we

separate

in fact. when the parts of potential actually united together, either be

is said to
are

whole the
are

not

in the world of thought, or physical world capable of being classed together on account

of their of the
same

being

made

after is

one common

pattern,
to

realizations Thus all

ideal

which

all.

have nothing existinganimals them together, but nevertheless

so

which

really unites
are

they
and

united
one

in
and

far
same

as

they
idea.

copy The

one

pattern

fulfil of

the do

various

members

the the

class Uni
as

not, when

all put

together, constitute
contained each and
a

versal, but
it
can

be the

they are applied to

a

under

it,inasmuch
This

all of them.

is

why
makes

Universal
it has it

is called certain
to

because

applicable
in

whole it is : potential or capacity which power each, and so comprises all

to

the The

individuals Universal

its power

embrace called

them
a

all.

is also it
not

sometimes

logical

whole, because
order

of

ideas,
that

belongs to the logical order, the of existing realities ; or a whole

it is extended under
over

of

extension,because
come as

all the
not

indi

viduals the

it.

It

does
make

consist of for it

individuals

the

parts that

it up,

138

ON

DIVISION.

is

capable

of

continually receiving fresh being

sense

additions them.
It

without

its nature

affected that
all of

by
it is

in the them comprises being applied to each

capable
to
can accom

of

and

them, and

each

fresh
modate

instance them

that

presents itself; it
its unlimited and

all within
as a

illimitable

circuit.

Animal,

properlyspeaking, of all ; it is in nowise affected but it comprises them in itself by the discovery of some animal unknown for hitherto,and it can always find plenty of room it within its extension without being itself changed.
To
return to

whole, does not consist, logical "c., horses, lions,tigers, men,

Definition

and

Division.

The

whole

deals is the actual whole, not Definition the physical, but the metaphysical. It breaks up man, into arms, be physical not legs,"c., for this would separation,but into the various simpler ideas which It takes that constitute the complex idea of man. with
which
nature

which

constitutes

him

man,

and

analyzes
up

it

into

its constituent
idea of

elements.

It

breaks

the

or humanity into reason rationality, is the distinguishing mark which that separates him all other beings, and animality, which is the off from and the brutes. It states to him possession common the results of its analysiswhen it says that man is

abstract

rational animal. The

metaphysical whole is thus divided into its of comprehension metaphysical parts, the whole in it, the into the comprehended parts that are it up. complex idea with the simple ideas that make is an actual separation,but not There a pnysical in fact separate man's cannot reason reparation ; we

LOGICAL

AND

METAPHYSICAL

WHOLES.

229

from ideas from

same

his is

animal

nature,
can we save

but

separation of
of his
reason

the

two

possible. We his animality ;

respect
flows also
as

think
can

away

conceive in the

him

just the
of
reason can

in every all that him

to

absence

and

from
as a

its

possession.
the
same

We
all

conceive

just
rational

in

that

belongs

him animal other

some come

being, and
But Take
away

deprived
neither the
man's

only
one

of

his the and

must

characteristics.
can

nor

exist apart.

reason,

other
in
to

forms

or

ciples
Take
cannot

determine

specifying prin his animality.

and
some

away

his

animal

nature,

his

reason

stand which the

alone, but
it
can

requires
and

material

object
On sion
a

determine whole

inform. with which Divi"

up

other in

hand, the
is
a

deals into

Logic

whole. potential smaller the classes

It breaks

class

the various

which

it

com

prises.
parts
under
reason

It

separates
all the
and

logical whole
that
common same

into

; it takes
one

individuals have
one

head,

logical are ranged name by

pattern,
and which

of their

all into
a

copying
number

the

analyzes them
contain fewer the

of smaller
reason

groups

individuals, by
members and of these
more

of the
groups

pattern

copied by
of
a

smaller restricted

being
and

more

elaborate
are

character.

We
must

here in

speaking of Logical Division,

mind of that
a

bear

the

word

Division, like
different
mean

Definition, admits

number
a

of

ings.
we

Definition clear

itself is
up
our

kind

of Division.
on

Perhaps
if
we

shall

notions

the

subject

enumerate
so

the various
up
to

possible kinds
Division

of Division, and
called.

lead

Logical

properly so

ON

DIVISION.

Physical Division of a physical whole into its into soul and body, or of physical parts, as of a man
I.

hydrogen, or of a tree flowers. root, trunk, branches, leaves, and

water

into

oxygen

and

into
But

these
are

three

instances kinds the of

reveal

to

us

the fact that there

:

various

Physical Division
What
mean

(a) Into
divided essential necessary
away away
once

essential parts of do

which
we mean

the

thing by the
are so

is

composed.
parts ?
to

We

those if
one

that

the whole of the soul

Take
ceases

that

of them

is taken Take
at

the

nature

whole
or

is

destroyed.
and he
ceases or

either
to

man's
man.

body,

be

away

the oxygen

hydro thing

gen,

and

water

to

be water. the

(6) Into
divided is

the

integralparts of which
What which
so

composed.
Those
are

do
are

we a

integral parts ? the whole, but

the
nature

by the real portion of

mean

not

absolutelynecessary
is of
as one a

that
course

of

the

whole

matter

of

destroyed by the absence

does
or a

of them. it has
because
no one

tree

not

cease

to

be

tree

because

flowers,
of the

human has

body
been
we

to be

human

hands
But
as

cut

off.

here

have

another
are are

subdivision

according
of the
same

the

integralparts
parts
are

homogeneous or heterogeneous.
those which
are

Homogeneous
nature

and

called

various

drops of which Heterogeneous parts

nature

by the same a body of water

are

name,

as

the

is

composed.
are

those

which

of

different
different

and

are

variously called, body, eyes,

e.g., the

limbs

of the human

ears,

hands,

feet,

VARIOUS

KINDS

OF

DIVISION.

231

we

of
or

Of this Metaphysical Division or Definition. have It is a true sort sufficiently spoken above. division, though it differs from Physical Division Yet inasmuch it separates a as Logical Division.
2.

whole
even

into

parts

it has

true

right to
to

the

name,

though
and 3.

those
not

parts

belong
the

the

world

of

thought
whole

of external
or

realities. division
A

Moral
into

Division,
its moral
of

of

moral
is
a

parts.

moral

whole

multitude
some or a

living beings
to

connected
as an

relation
swarm

each
or

other,
a

army,

together by or a family,
are

of bees, moral

pack
a

of hounds. whole either the

The

parts of such
it
or

individuals

that compose
a

certain

smaller

groups
to

possessing
other. the
Thus

somewhat
in
an

similar the moral

relation

each either of

army,

parts

are

individual it is

soldiers, or

the various

regiments
of
an am

which
4.

composed.
Division,
into
or

Verbal
term

the

division

biguous
5.

its various
or

significations.
Division is broken individuals

Logical
smaller within

Division,
the

properly
up

so

called, in which
various

universal
or

into the
are

classes its extent.

which

contained

ON

DIVISION.

But

we

may

break

up

the

largerclass

into smaller

classes, either
sions
fixed

division
from genus,

for

by following the hard and fast divi of by nature, or by framing principles ourselves. Every species is divided off
the same under come species which by any arbitrary distinction invented the purposes of his own convenience, and definite The

all other
not

by
but

man

foi
fixed

by

boundaries various

the nature for

things. instance, are the

of these ha: without have
to

of

belonging to species of animals,

distinct Creation. essential
be what
at

realization mind of God

of various
the the
to

types existing in the

Each

its

own

essence,

characteristic
it is. We

which

it

ceases

is unnecessary
Now if
we

it already explained this,1 and explanations here. repeat our

on

divide laid
in

the
down

basis

of

the
we

lines have
sense,

of

demarcation Division
up

by
the

nature,
and

Logical breaking
which
into
men,

the

strict into

proper various

the it.

genus In

species
animals
and

compose

this

sense

we

divide

lions, tigers,bears, monkeys,

under
some

the

various

species that come select If, however, we

ourselves, then
useful for
we

the

genus

animal.

arbitrary difference
a

for

have

sort

of

accidental
not

divis'on Division

practical purposes,
converse as

but

the

which

is the

of Definition, and Such into

an

belongs itself to Logic

division

such.

accidental

long-lived and and short-lived, carnivorous graminivorous, hirsute the and smooth, "c., where point of distinction radical difference marks of nature, but only in no
1

would

be

of

animals

Pp. 183.

is4

234

ON

DIVISION

Dichotomy
and
as

is

division

long as I positive dividing member to be divided, I cannot

Thus
and and I
am

by means cling to it,and

err

of contradictories,
am

careful that the

under

is included in my

the class

division.
pears edible dimis

always
or

safe in

not-pears,
not-edible.

into There

dividingfruit into into or ripe and not-ripe, is,however, often some

the Unless
one.

culty in discoveringwhether
included
my under the be

dividing member
I
am sure

class.
a

of this, Dicho*

division

will

futile

Moreover,

tomy has
the

another

disadvantage,that

it often escapes

danger, only by covering our ignorance or uncer tainty at a certain stage by negative and indefinite I have to divide substances and I begin by terms. into two dichotomizing them, i.e.,I separate them non-material and classes, material (or spiritual). into living Then, again, I divide material substances and not-living; by repeating the process I subdivide if I Now living into sensitive and non-sensitive.
know

that

there

are save

no

non-sensitive

material division

and

livingsubstances,
be
a

vegetables,my

will

satisfactoryone : but if I have to leave the indefinite term weak there remains a non-sensitive, point at the end of the process. On the other hand Division a easilyerr, in may that one of the parts includes more than the thing
divided. If
I
were

to

divide

jewels

into

rubies,

sapphires,amethysts, emeralds, diamonds, topazes, crystals,garnets, pearls, blood-stones, and agates, division would include too much, since crystals my is a name that are not stones applicableto many
and jewels, the
same

may

be

said

of blood-stones

DICHOTOMY.

a35

and

agates.

Or

if I divide either of

Africans these there

into cannibals classes

are

and the

non-cannibals,
class and
to

exceeds
can

be

divided, since

both

nibals besides Yet avoided

non-cannibals

in other

parts of the world

Africa. in this last

instance

might
my

easily
division

have of

the
not

danger
into Africans
I

by
and

making
and

Africans,
into
So

cannibals

non-cannibals, but
Africans. into

cannibal

non-cannibal
men

again, if
is

divide

Oxford

Doctors,
my
I

Masters, Bachelors, and

sion
a

Undergraduates,
that

divi
mean

correct

one

if it is understood

by Doctors,
of
But

Doctors

of Oxford,
not to
as

Oxford,
if any
my

"c., and
one were

of
meet

by Masters, Masters other University. any

a

D.D., and
that

conclude he
must

from

division be
an

given
man,

above

therefore

Oxford

ignoring Cambridge,
draw
a

Durham,
inference. fact of

London,
Of

"c., he
in

would such

a as

very

false

course,

case

this, the
Univer
mistake the and
case. non-

Degrees

being

conferred
to

by
render
not

other the

obvious sities,is sufficiently

an

If

But imaginary one. I divide quadrupeds I

me

this into

is

always

mammals
a

mammals,
occurs man.

have that

to

reflect is
a

moment

before

it

to

there

mammal
my

biped, viz.,
division, and

If

accordingly quadrupeds
to

re-cast

substitute earth of of

for

animals
and
two

living

on

the
out

(as opposed
new

birds

fishes),and
exhaustive
I

then

this

class and wood.

form

the

classes
not

mammal of the

non-mammal,
Is there
to
no

still

am

quite
the

clear
water

animal ?

livingin

that

gives suck

its young

Yes, the whale.

136

ON

DIVISION.

Hence desire into

I must
to

change
accurate.

the
I

terms
must

of my divide

division

if I

be

mammal

quadrupeds

and

quadrupeds non-mammal quad

not

arises. Are rupeds. But here a fresh difficulty there any beasts all quadrupeds mammals Are ? the earth that do not give suck to their young ?

of If

not, then
I have in
to

our

division

is

futile
to

one.

Once
a

again
little that

and reflect,

perhaps
as

rummage

natural
and
new

history books
rabbits
are

well, before
and unassailable

I learn

hares

not

mammals,

that there
one. a

fore my This

division

is

an

last doubt

of non-mammal
our

respectingthe existence of quadrupeds, endangering, as

us

class

it did,

division,leads
Rule
2.

to

the

second

rule.
must

None

of
is
one

the

dividing members
whole. the

be

equal in
When null
and

extent

to the divided

this rule

broken,
of the
animals
one a

Division

becomes
no

void, for
If

classes into

contains sensitive

members.

I divide have

and

non-sensitive, I
there
is
no

of these

futile divisions ;

such
is the

thing as

non-sensitive

animal, for

that separates distinguishingmark off animals from vegetables. The amount of feeling be so small as to be scarcelyappreciable. The may commemorated above,1 through which poor jelly-fish stick is barbarously thrust, suffers no tortures my conscience need be disturbed. The by which my
thousand every

sensation

animalculae of river
agony

which
water

are

said
we

to

exist

in
no

drop
the

that the

drink, have
of

prolonged body
or

before

warmth

the

human

action

of the
1

acids

of the stomach

pul

Pp. 6b, 69.

SECOND

RULE

OF

DIVISION.

237

an

end of

to

their

feeble life.

But, nevertheless,
all

to

the

class

sensitive Division be said

beings they
of that
animals

belong.
an

This It may besides

Do
we

suggests
are

objection. beings plant

?

there How

other

sensitive sensitive

animals.
not

about that

the

say,

moreover,
are

certain

chemicals

used
render
to

in

photography
soaked

selected,
them

because

they
sensitive
our

paper

in

exceedingly
it appears
on

the

action would of

of

light ?
be

Hence

that

division that class

one

assailable classes

another extends

ground

the

dividing
to

beyond

the

divided.
answer our

The
we ance our

this

objection
and
so

is clear
on

enough, if
the
us

collect of
way

thoughts
of
we

fall back often We that

assist
to
see

Definition, which
out

enables
must

difficulties. shall find

define sensi
its strict and and animals
or

tive, and
proper

then

in

sense

it is

applicableto animals,
means

alone.

Sensitive
some

capable of sensation,
of

susceptible of
sensitive
to

sort not
so

feeling.
because

Our
we

friend

the

plant is
kind of

called

attribute it presents

it any

sensation, but
those
means

because

to phenomena capable of feeling; by

or

similar

presented
of
some

by things
mechanical of
case

organic
in
a

process Hence

it simulates the and

so

the

appearance

sensation. used

word

sensitive
sense.

is in its
So
too

derived
paper

improper
called
because

the

sensitive in its

is

it is

so

delicate

of light, that it appreciation of the influence resembles senses a or feelings living being whose are keenly appreciative of any impressions very
made
on

them

"

another

use

of

the

word

which

ON

DIVISION.

departs not meaning.

This

little from

the

strict

and

proper

second

rule

is violated
any be

whenever
or

we

take

either
accident

the

or differentia

property
as

of the

class

to

divided

inseparable the principle

of any class that Nothing but a species be broken into species, or an can inseparable up accident of a class admitting merely of acci dental be used of divi for purposes divisions,can
sion. If I
were

of Division.

to

divide and

Saints

into

holy
or or

and into into who

not-holy, or
those
those have this which
to

into
grace
to

humble

not-humble,
those trials and
in each
to

in who
to

the

of God
suffer
some

and

not,

have
no

those
case a

suffer

I should trials, be

break class

rule, for I should

would involve

trying

form

contradiction

Saints

with

or propertiesdirectly their sanctity. A Saint

by attributing at variance indirectly who not was holy

contradiction
but who
a an

would terms,
names

be

direct

and

immediate

in

for

humble
was

holiness are sanctity and for the same thing ; a Saint be no would Saint and at all,
no

different
was

not

Saint

who

subject to accompaniment
up but the
not

trials would

lack In

invariable
to

of true
look

sanctity.
for
some

order

break

class

I must

quality sometimes
the Saints.
have I may

always belonging
Saints sin in

to

divide mortal their

into the

Saints

who Saints

committed
never

past, and

who

lost

baptismal innocence, since the preservation of is not an invariable baptismal innocence accompani sanctity. Or I long-livedand short-lived
ment

of

may
;
or

divide

Saints
who

into
.

into

Saints

led

THIRD

RULE

OF

DIVISION.

339

an

active
a

life and

Saints

who

did into

not

lead

an

active
were

but

contemplative life ; or were Martyrs and Saints who

Saints worked and
women

Saints

who
or

Confessors;
;
or

into

men

Saints and Saints of

a

into

Saints
no

who

miracles Other

who breach into

worked

miracles. would suffer

be

instances of

of this rule those do who

or

the

division

dyspeptics
those and

from

indigestion
learned this
not.

and

who

not,

philosophers into
Sometimes it

unlearned.
to

rule appears hermit

or

be

broken
means
a

when
man

reallyis
who

eremite if I divide
and
to

who

lives in the

desert, and

hermits who

into
do
an

hermits
not

live in the the

desert
I
seem

hermits be

live

in

desert,
But

creating
lost

imaginary
of the
name

class.

common

usage

has and

sight
the

strict
to

etymological meaning,
live
monk

applies the
from

all who
So
a

world.
I
can

by themselves (/lom^o?) means

monks

apart
a

solitary, yet
and
non-

rightlydivide
of the word.
into

into has

solitaries the

solitaries, since

custom

altered
same

original
may

meaning
be

In

the

way

misers lives

divided there which which

those

who who of

live
do

happy
not

(if any
into
and

such those those

be) and
are are

those

; and

pens

made

the

feathers
any

of birds of this of the

not, without

breach

rule,
word

by

reason

of the has
3.

change
various
;
no

in the

meaning

that

custom

introduced.

Rule clusive

The

of

each

other

dividing classes must member of any class

Division

be
must

ex

be,

found
be

in any

other class. rule is

When
a

this

broken, the
and
a

is said is

to

Cross-Division,

cross-division

always

ON

DIVISION.

bad. papers, papers, papers,

Thus

the division
of

of newspapers
papers, papers,

into Catholic Conservative Democratic

be
a cross-

Church Liberal
Home many

England
Radical papers, paper

papers, Rule
a one

would
be

division,for
under
more

is to

found

included Or
if
we

than

of these

divisions.

divide
panzees,

monkeys

into

gorillas, apes,

baboons,

chim

marmozets,

orang-outangs,

long-haired

monkeys, short-haired monkeys, monkeys, Indian African a baboon monkeys, it is clear that as many is also an African marmozets monkey, and some are long-haired,the division is a faultyone. The defect against which this rule guards us from result either of the classes one being may entirelyincluded in another, as for instance in the
division of mankind

Frenchmen,
Australasians

Europeans, Englishmen, Asiatics,Hindoos, Africans,Americans,

;
or

into

from

one

class

other, so
in

to

speak, so
has
some

that it is not
members

overlapping the included entirely

in
common

it, yet it
in the

with

it, as
and

division

of
and

poems

heroic, elegiac, tragic

lyric,epic, comic, sonnets, odes,

of this rule
a con

into

hymns.
The
secret

of

good

observance is called
my

sists in the choice

of what

fixed

Principle
not

of Division.
at to to

must
or

form

different classes
one

hap-hazard,
another,
one

looking
nature
same

first to of the

aspect, then
Almost

of the of

the

individuals, but
every

and

aspect of all.
divided view
up

class ways,

admits

being
to the

in

several of it. If

different
a

according
to

taken class

book-

collector has

break

the

of books, he will

OAT

DIVISION.

serve

the

purpose will be and We

which

he

has

in view, and

his

Division
or

into

and interesting

not-interesting,

into useful Rule

4.
or

not-useful.
should

proximate
on

immediate

always divide a class into its that is, into those which classes,
which may be

the
once

Principle of Division
upon
Rule
ne

assumed,follow
classes.

at

it without

any

intermediate

This
Divisio

is sometimes

fiatper saltum. make of which the breach jumps. It is not one vitiates essentially a Division, it only impairs its excellence and renders it less practically service
able. of
a

expressed by the phrase : In dividing we must not

For

instance, I have

to

divide

the

members

If I begin classes. regiment into smaller into colonels, majors, captains, by dividing them lieutenants, ensigns, Serjeants, corporals, lancesomehow corporals, and private soldiers, I am

conscious
do far
more

that

am

going
if I

too

far at

once.

I shall

wisely

first of
a

all divide

into

the

immediate

divisions

of

regiment, viz.,com
officers,and

missioned

officers,non-commissioned
then make
a

privates,and
necessary,

further officers

subdivision, if
into

of commissioned

colonels,

majors, captains, lieutenants, and ensigns, and oi officers into Serjeants, non-commissioned corporals, and lance-corporals. rule is more This distinctlyviolated, if our
Division into which
is
a we

if disparate one, i.e., divide is

are an

one

of the classes
and

immediate
and

proximate
The

class, while
division of

others

mediate

remote.

triangles into spherical, right-angled, be a breach acute-angled and obtuse-angled would

SUMMARY.

a43

of this rule, since

class of

corresponding

to

the

proximate
be the
a

sphericalthe other member proximate class of rectangular, which subsequent

divisions If
we

should

ought by
into of the its sub

Division

to

be

split up
character

determined
animals

by

the

angles.
be

divide

into

birds, beasts, dog-fish, fish, we

inhabitants in shall divide

fresh-water

fish, and
If into

salt-water
we

breaking this rule. United Kingdom

and

of the

dwellers

England, Wales,

Scotland,
a

Ulster,
involve

Munster,

Connaught,
cannot error,

and said

Leinster, such
to necessarily

Division, though it
any

be

positive

neverthe is
to likely

less

leads
us

to

confusion

of

thought, and
and

mislead
Our

altogether. so chapter on
Division,
up
are

important
not

practicala
without

subject as summing
that there

must

be

concluded

its contents. various

We kinds

(subdivided into physicaland

by explaining of Unity, actual unity and metaphysical) poten

began
to

unity. Corresponding whole physical whole, or

Definition and the breaks
up

tial

these

is

the

meta

of

into

comprehension,which its metaphysical parts,

or

potential or
We
are

logical whole,
breaks
up

whole

of

extension, which
parts.

Division
not

into

logical
the

in

Logic

concerned

with

the moral with and than more physical whole any verbal, but simply with the metaphysical and logical. is Division as an analysis of the logical whole control it : subject to four laws which The together make I. dividing parts must up

the

divided

whole, neither

more

nor

less.

This

is

ensured

by dichotomy.

DIVISION

2.

None be

of

the
to

dividing
divided

parts
whole.

taken

separately

must

equal

the
be

3.

There

must

no

cross-division,
one

but

the

two

dividing
4.

parts
We
must

must

exclude
descend and
to

another. the

proximate

classes

when

we

divide,

not

make

jumps.

LOGIC.

PART
OF

II.
OK

JUDGMENT

ASSENT.

CHAPTER
JUDGMENTS.

I.

Judgment

"

Meaning

of
"

the

word

"

Definition
of

of

the
"

word

"

Three and

steps in

Judgment

Various
"

names

Judgment

Prudent
"

Imprudent
and
and A

Judgments
"

Convictions and
"

and

Opinions
A

Hypothesis
"

Certainty
and

Immediate

Mediate
Test of

Judgments
Priori

Priori
"

Posteriori

Judgments

Judgments

Analytical
THE three

Synthetical Judgments.

parts

of

Logic correspond,
to

as

we

have of
con

already remarked,1
Thought.
Idea the In

the

three
we

operations
have
been

the

first

part

sidering Simple Apprehension,

or

which itself
to

engenders

the

concept,
We the

and
now

expresses

externally in
consideration

Term.

proceed

the of

of

Judgment,

second

operation
of

Thought.
engenders
or

Judgment
mental

(judicium, airo^ava^}
judgment
P. 93-

the

declaration

declarative

expression (\6yo"? dTrotyavrt/cos) expressing

1

itself

s"46

JUDGMENTS. the
or enuntiatio, Proposition(TrpoTaais,

externallyin effatum). It
in the like
a

derives

its

name

from

the the

fact
mind

that
sits

second

operation

of

thought

sentence

of two
or

the
our

to

its judgment-seat, and judge upon passes respecting the agreement or disagreement objects of thought, affirming or denying one other. We mentally place two things present thoughts, one by the side of the other, and
them

comparing respecting them. with the other, or

in the
sentence

after

together, we
we

pass

sentence
one some

If
if
our

find

them

coincide
in

attention
we

is fixed

point or points of agreement,

that
negroes
or we are

unite them

together
savage find
on

pass

animals;
them
some our

Some

Tigers are thick-lipped.If we

; as,

at

variance,
of

if

our

attention
we are

is fixed them
;

point

disagreement,

separate
not savage

in

judgments, as : Turtle-doves negroes are not thick-lipped.

Here
1. we

Some

notice the

(like the Judgment is a double and the Latin judicium) aTTofyava-Ls, (a) for the act of passing sentence ; (b)
word
sentence

That

Greek word
;

for

the

of

passed. language, but

here. when
we

This

is not
an

mere

clumsiness

expresses

important
be

fact

of

psychology, which, however,

to

it would

untimely

discuss
2.

objectsof thought together,it does not follow of necessitythat we pass form We sentence or a judgment. suspend may shall we our judgment, and if we are prudent men, have good grounds for invariablydo so, unless we Thus I compare together arriving at a decision.
That
compare
two

DEFINITION

OF

JUDGMENT.

24?

Kamschatkans
a

a.ud in

honest.
my

have
cannot nor,

never

known
on

Kamschatkan assertion

and life,

venture
on

any

of

their
reason

honesty,
to

the

other

hand, have

I any I

Accordingly
make
or

suspend
of the
two
we

my

they are judgment, and

think

dishonest. refuse
to

any

statement

at all

respectingthe
a

coincidence

dissidence
3.

ideas. form and and be Judgment it may judgment, provisional

one.

That

when and be

tentative

uncertain
a

or

it may

firm

unwavering
and

Thus

I compare have have time their the with dition

reverses

together
half
a

Dutchmen

intelligent.I
and all of them

known been

dozen

Dutchmen,

at the same remarkably intelligent ; but half-dozen have been exceptional in my may when and I lay down therefore intelligence,

proposition, Dutchmen
some

are

hesitation,
I will not

and

under

I do intelligent, the implied con

it

that
my

maintain

it,if further

experience
act

belief in the
may is be

of intelligence defined
and
as
a

Dutchmen.
in

Judgment
which
act to

mental
or a

something
in which identical
one

asserted

denied,
is from

mental

object
with
or

of

thought
three

pronounced
some or

be

different

other

object of thought.
First be

It includes
two

steps

stages.
must

stage.

The

objects of thought

We cannot sen separately apprehended. pass The first opera to tence us. on things unknown therefore tion of thought must invariably precede the be sion include second.
any

We

do

not

mean

that

there

need

interval

between
"

the flash there

Simple
of
must

and them

Judgment
both
"

one

Apprehen thought may

least be
a

but

at

JUDGMENTS

precedence
Thus before

of order
I
or can

and

of nature,
any

if not

of time.

agreement

judgment respecting the disagreement of sophistry and philo

form
can

deny that sophists are must clearlyapprehend what is the that I am meaning of the several terms employing ; what is the nature of the sophist and philosopher respectively.
assert
or

sophy, before I philosophers,I

Second

stage.
must

The be

two

objects of thought

thus

apprehended
pass the
at. sentence

compared
a

without

trial ;

together. We the judge must

the decision
a

cannot

examine

partiesto
I must
a

the suit before

not

is arrived

what
that

what only know philosopher is,before I can

sophist is,and assert or deny

must

but I sophists are philosophers, them side by side and look at each in other, just like a carpenter who puts of wood side by side before he unites Third

also

put

the his
them

lightof the two pieces together.

the
final

stage.
our

We

are

not

arrived

at

stage of

judgment. After examining the nature of still the two objectsand comparing them we together, have something further to do ; our comparison must perception of the agreement or of the objects compared, before agreement as a or disagreement is laid down agreement The end we by a positive act of the mind. in making the comparison was before ourselves of this relation between them, and recognition
eventuate
a

in

dis that fact

set

the
must

assertion res precede in the order of nature any attitude to one another. pecting their mutual do I say in the order of nature ? Because Why the recognition of agreement of time in the order

250

JUDGMENTS. Sometimes it is called Assent the

I mind
or adhaesio) (assensus

inasmuch verdict the

as

gives

its adherence

to

the

passed.
of is
a

idea

apprehend and nasty insect,

strong
assent,

the idea of the

a

earwig and
com

result
firm

of my

parison
the

adherence

to

objectionable character repulsive little creature.

Sometimes
or (affirmatio

of that

harmless,

but

it has

the

name

Assertion
as

or

Denial
or
a

denies

one man

negatio),inasmuch thing of another.

I shall assert

it asserts if
I
am

Thus

prudent
of
roast

the undesirable

character

of of men ordinary supper of digestion in the judgment : Roast average powers pork eaten at night is unwholesome; or I may put the same assertion in the form of a denial by saying :

pork

for the

Roast

pork eaten
OF

at

night is

not

wholesome.

DIVISIONS either person

to

the
i.

JUDGMENT. Judgments are divided of the (i) according to the state of mind who frames the judgment, or (2) according of the judgment in itself. nature
"

In

the

former

case

the

division

is said

to

be

subject or party mind whose undergoes the operation of forming a the side on judgment; in the latter ex parte objccti, his of the object of thought, or that to which the first head Under thoughts are directed. they when divided into prudent or well-advised are they the result of careful and deliberate thought, and are rash or imprudentor ill-advised when they are arrived under the impulse of at after insufficient inquiry or
ex

on parte subjecti,

the

side of the

prejudice

or

passion.

This

division

is

not

one

PRUDENT

AND

IMPRUDENT

JUDGMENTS.

251

that
but
to

comes,
we

have

strictly speaking, under already said that we

the
cause

Formal
must

Logic;
time
our

from outside
may

time, in

of watch mind
men

truth, stop
for of
error

proper

domain,
into

and the
two

that

creep

in

unawares

man.

For into the

instance,
truth

set

to

work of

to

inquire
studies
con

of

miracles.

One

them

theological treatises
verses

respecting
who

their
as

nature,
well
as

with

those their

uphold
the

those
are

who

deny

visits reality,

spots

which

renowned testimonies

for miracles, reads

carefully the
sudden
cures

medical worked

respecting
the
and

the

there, studies
the moral

lives

of the

saints, inquires into

of the
most

religious

character the

celebrated the

thaumaturgi,

weighs

evidence him
at
a a

for

Gospel miracles, and (we begs God for light that he may
clusion. arrives If
at the
one

suppose

theist)
con

arrive his

true

such

man,

after

careful
are

inquiry,
character

conclusion
can

that miracles
to

undoubted

facts,no
of details hand
a

deny
The

his
man

judgment
refuses declares fervent

the
to

prudence.
of
to

other

study

the

alleged miracles,
the result

them

before
or

be

of

imagination
the his believer
own

deliberate
to
sees

imposture, challenges
show
one, cannot

in

miracles and him if he

him
or

one

before evidence

eyes,

has

brought
it to he

before
some

which

he

gainsay,
of nature.

attributes

yet undiscovered
sentence,
are as

power
a

When

passes

such

one

will, that certainly

we

miracles

absurd, impossible and calling this his judgment

shall
and

be

right

in

rash

wanting

in

prudence.

JUDGMENTS.
What
order deserve
amount

of

investigationis
which

necessary

in

that the

judgment
of

results from

it should

depend on the prudent, must in question. Here it is importance of the matter impossible to lay down any law ; the only rule that is that such be laid down of inquiry amount can an
the
name

should

be

made

as

would

be

regarded
with

as

sufficient
matter

men by intelligent question. Nor is

conversant

the

in

it

possible to
of antecedent

for

the

elimination
a

lay down any laws prejudice, since

prejudice is,in
will rather than

altogetherout Judgments
person

of

majority of cases, a disease of the of the intellect, and, therefore, lies the scope of the logician.
also
them be

may

divided

in

regard of the

who

forms
and

convictions

uncertain all dread of mind

former
and

exclude

judgments or judgments or opinions. The of the opposite being true,

results

into

certain

the state
;

that
not

from

them

is

cer

titude

the

latter

do

exclude the
or

all dread of

of the

opposite being true, and assent produce is hesitating

tion. To latter

state

mind

they

the

or hypothesis, supposi the former the mind to clings absolutely, until further only provisionally light is

obtained.
One of the

chief

sources

of human exalt what

error

is the

tendency of mankind tions,to regard as jump at doing so.

conclusions
A
man

to

certain

opinions into convic is still uncertain, to

is
no

where
obtains
a

there

warranty

for

partialknowledge
those
come

of the
an

facts of the

case,

and

from

facts constructs
to

hypothesis ; additional facts which happen to fit in with

his

knowledge hypothesis ; under

his

HYPOTHESIS

AND

CERTAINTY.

153

the

influence
an

of

these

he

unduly
law,

expresses
to

his close
pro

hypothesis as
his eyes claims
a

established

manages

to to

all facts that world

as

militate

against it,and
what is
at

the

axiomatic
may

best
may

but also

brilliant

guess,

which

be

true, and

be false.
In all scientific
must
are

this stage of hypothesis investigation and these brilliant guesses precede certainty, often the of most important and precursors

valuable

discoveries, but
as

it is

fatal

mistake
and
not

to to

regard
assume

certain of

what
an

is still induction

uncertain,
which has is still an
man

the truth

been

tested. sufficiently

Thus

Evolution

hypo
calls

thesis, not
himself his law
an comes

scientific

law, and
should

the

who

Evolutionist into

remember the
statement

this when of the

conflict with

arrived conclusions at by Lyell theologian. The and other geologistsrespectingthe age of the world of which have already been but hypotheses, many are overthrown by subsequent discovery. For a long time the the motion of the earth
It
was

round
a

the

sun

was

in
a

stage

of

hypothesis.
which

brilliant show

guess,

scientific

opinion
for
to

could in

not

sufficient
to

grounds
were

its acceptance, be the

opposition
it
not

what

supposed
In

counter-statements

of

Holy

clearly established, and though his genius, overleaping the have instinctively ordinary laws of investigation, may in holding it him recognized its truth, and justified
Scripture.
was as
a

the

time

of

Galileo

private opinion, yet

was

the

verdict with

of the the

Roman

Congregation
theories of the

in accordance Galileo could

scientific
no

day.

bring

forward

1?4

JUDGMENTS. sufficient to convince them that

stated

proof
and

he
his

was

right

they were
due

wrong.

If he had
as an

discovery

with

modesty, merely
submission
to

fessingall
ness

lawful
he

and pro hypothesis, authority and readi could

not

to

withdraw

all that would

prove, arisen

the
and

unfortunate

conflict

never

have
a

given

the enemies
attacks

of the
on

Church

plausibleground
of the

for their

the

alleged narrowness

mind. theological in various Judgments are also divided ways in regard of the objects of thought which com are pared together,without any reference to the state of this of the person Under mind comparing them. judgments and aspect they are divided into immediate mediate judgments. An immediate judgment is one in which the agree
2.

ment

disagreement of the objectscompared may be recognized at once from a knowledge of their a nature, or from experience. If from knowledge of
or

their nature, if from

we

have

an

immediate

immediate an experience, in which the agreement A mediate judgment is one or disagreement of the subject and predicate can only be recognized by a process of reasoning. Thus, if I compare together circle and round as the
two

analytic judgment, synthetic judgment.

and imme objects of my thought, I at once from the very nature diately perceivetheir agreement of the case, or if I compare together angel and in therefore the corporeal, and judgments, Circles immediate are round, and Angels have no bodies, are judgments. But, if I compare together the human body and

PRIORI

AND

POSTERIORI

JUDGMENTS.

255

mortal,
before
I

I have
can

to

go

through
whether

process

of
two

ascertain
or

these

thought

disagree. I have to say The human body is material. A II material thingsare corruptible. All corruptible thingsare liable to decay.
agree

reasoning objects of to myself:

A II
/.

The I

thingsliable human body

to

decay are

mortal.

is mortal.

the mortality of the human only ascertain of other objects of body, through the medium thought, viz.,material, corruptible, liable to decay; and judgment is therefore mediate. my also divided into judgments a Judgments are Here have and judgments a posteriori.We already priori, but must we incidentally, again spoken of these here in their proper discuss them place. is one in which the pre An a priori judgment dicate the the
any

is included

in

or

united

to

the

very

idea

of

subject, and
very
one

is deducible of
a

from

it, so

that

from

nature

things they

agree

who

has

comprehensive
that

subject, perceivesimmediately
a

together,and knowledge of the the predicate is

with
is

part of it,or
whole

is

necessarily connected
a

it,as

The

is greater than
a

part

God

omnipotent.

in priori negative judgment is one disunited from the predicate is excluded which or that from the very the very idea of the subject, so of things they disagree from each nature other, and who has a thorough knowledge of the subject, any one perceives that the predicate is not a part of it,and

Similarly an

is

disconnected necessarily
;

with

it,as

Circles

are

not

square

Honest

men

are

not

thieves.

JUDGMENTS.

judgment is posteriori in which included the predicateis not necessarily one idea of the subject,but may in or united to the or be connected with it,so that they do not not may of things,but only because we agree from the nature from the facts of the case learn by experience and built of brick or stone ; that they agree ; as, Houses are white ; Foxes are cunning ; Gold is a precious Swans are invention. metal ; Telephones are a recent Similarly an in which the a negative judgment is one posteriori disunited or predicate is not necessarilyexcluded be from the idea of the subject,but may not or may separated from it,so that they do not disagree from of things, but only because the nature experience and that they us a knowledge of external facts teaches in England ; not found wild are disagree, as Wolves malady. Dyspepsiais not a pleasant also called necessary, A priori judgments are oi because they declare the necessary agreement because an analysis subject and predicate; analytical shows that the predicate of the subject at once because metaphysics deah belongs to it ; metaphysical of things. with the inner nature A posteriori judgments are also called contingent it may because that not or happen (contingere) may because the subject or predicate agree; synthetical arrived from at not an analysis of the they are putting together (avvOelvai) a subject, but from number of observed facts ; empiricalbecause they be learned are by experience (e^TreLpia) ; physical of nature cause physics deals with the external things.
On

the

other

hand,

an

858

JUDGMENTS.
has covered

boy
he which
one

his paper

with

has

vainly hoped that one the exterior angle is equal

interior
law and

trianglesin which be found, in may

to
or

less than All To

Not the

of the The

opposite angles.
of
no

in all in

vain !

admits

exception.
be in

eternityno
the which of God in
moon,

such
not

triangle will
in

found.
any Not be make of

Sirius,
whom

not

stars

make

up

the
to

Milky Way.
it would
to

in the

mind

Himself,
of
His
utmost

spite
the

omnipotence,
exercise
uf His

impossible, a triangle
power,

by
to

Divine be

in

which
or

the less

exterior* than
one

angle
of the

should

either
and

interior

equal opposite

angles.
Let
us

take Is this the

another
an a

of money.
to

proposition: Jews are fond prioriproposition? According Jew implies

proper money for
not

some,

very but the

word

the

money-

loving temper,
the
word. be Is It may

this is not fondness

the

meaning

of

universal? the the

?

so, but
a

this would

of itself make
Does

proposition an analysisof Jew Certainly not.

descended from

priorior
furnish

one. analytical

the

idea in

of

fond of
idea

money

What the of
a

is there chosen
sordid

the

of
God

being
that
Is

people
desire

of

involves it
a

the idea

for riches ?
we

necessary

There

is there
there

no

proposition? necessity in
not

Again
the

answer,

No.

reason

of
race

why
such

should

be
are

members

of the

things (and

are) who
The
which
at

gain. empirical one,

It is arrived

sordid

absolutely indifferent to and proposition is an a posteriori

may be
true ;

and

may

be

false.

from

experience

it may

sometimes

ANALYTICAL

AND

SYNTHETICAL

JUDGMENTS

259

be the
a

case

and

sometimes

not

; it is

an essentially

proposition. posteriori
This

distinction, clearlymarked
be

as

it

is, cannot
discover
an

always
We
may

applied
sometimes

at

first find

sight

to

particular cases.
hard
to

it very

whether
a

any

priorione.
are

or given judgment is an a posteriori Take, for instance, the judgment,

All be

negroes

black. On the

To
one essence

which

head

is be

this said
race,

to

assigned ?
blackness that
men.

hand, it may
of the

that
and

is of the

negro

it is this which On ? real test the other

distinguishesthem
hand, what
are we

from
to

white about

say

albinoes The

of this

and of the

similar

whether, in the notion

propositions is subject as understood

men,

by
a

educated the

and

well-informed
If so, the

there

is

in
an

cluded

predicate.

proposition

is

priori or

In the

if not, it is a posteriori. analyticalone; the instance just given, there is no question that includes idea of generally entertained negro Albinoes whether
are can a

blackness. doubtful in
an

lusus called very

a

naturae.

It
even

is

they
sense.

be The

negroes

improper
negro,
as

expression, A
in
as

white
terms
or

is

just
bar
men

as

much
man.

contradiction

An
are no

irrational
to

But
a

just

madmen

idiots

the
are

priori character
so

of the
are are

judgment
albinoes black. But if
to

that
that

rational,

neither negroes

of

the

judgment:
the
common-sense

All

we

examine Lions
are

by

test
we

the find

proposition: it gives very

fierceanimals,
results. The

shall

different

judgment

is

"60

JUDGMENTS.

generally true, sally. The

fierceness.
even

but

not

necessarily, or
lion
a

indeed include

univer

idea If
we

of

does
race

not

that

of

found
a

of

lions
to

gentle and
in
as

cowardly
not
same.

(such
we

race

is said

exist them

Asia,
lions
our

I know

where),

should
lion We

regard
does
are

just

the

Cowardly
white negro. and
are

not

jar

upon

intellect
most

like
are

well

aware

that

lions
to

fierce

brave,

but

we

are

quite
of
not

ready
We the

find

that

there

plenty of exceptions.
Kant's

have

already
of
a we

discussed

theory
that
are

existence
and
a

priori propositions
need
not

analytical,
refutation

add

anything analysis,
which

here

in

of

priori synthetical propositions.

from
an

His
was

theory
an

arose

imperfect
laws

and

easy
some

way
cases

out to

of

the

difficultyof reducing by
all
best

them

in

the is
one

thought
modern

is

regulated.

It is

rejected by the
of that
those

logicians,1 and
which
men

fond have

inventions

by
on

imagine
the

they
of

improved they
the

scholastic thus

principles, not
off
on

perceiving that
face alone the
true

would

improve

earth

solid
can

foundations
rest

which

philosophy

unshaken.
Cf. Zigliara, Logic*, pp.
concedere
et

84, 85,
et

who

says

"

Impossible
in in

igitur

est

universalitatem
negare

necessitatem

praedicati
includi

aliquo
ratione

subjecto, subject!
(atente inclusione
revera

hujusmodi

praedicatum
habent
;

ipsa
quae

consequenter

judicia
in
notione
et
a

synthetica-a- priori,
a ac

habent,
de

Kantio,

priores conditiones,
absolute

fortiori

et

alteram

praedicati analytica

subircti

proinde

ilia

judicia

sunl

priori."

CHAPTER
ON

II.

PROPOSITIONS,
is
a

THEIR

NATURE

AND

DIVISIONS.

What

Proposition
"

Predicate
"

Proposition Ambiguity of word Analysis of Propositions Divisions of Propositions

"

Parts

of

"

"

Necessary Falsity

and

Contingent
"

Propositions" Affirmative
and
as a

and

Negative
and

Propositions
in

True

False
test

Logic" Logic
Predicate

Propositions Truth of Truth Quantity of

"

"

Propositions" Singular Propositions" Indefinite

Distribution of the
"

Propositions-

Rules

of Distribution.

WE

have

already

said

that
and

Logic

is

concerned

primarily with
as

thought,
for

with

language
of

in

so

far

it

is

necessary

the

expression
with

thought.
the ideas

The
as

first part

of Logic
the external

dealt

Terms, inasmuch
of

they
are

are

rendering
first of

which
In

the

result way

of the the

operation of thought.
part

the

same

second the the

Logic
in

deals

with

of

Propositionsas the judgments operation

else external
state

being
which

external mind Hence forms

a

rendering
the

second

of than

thought.
a

Proposition
words

is
or

nothing
other
we

judgment expressedin
Not word

signs.
a

necessarily in words,
a or a

for

may

proposition by
father her of
"

shake

of the the her

cat

head. has

If had
way

asks

his little
and

girl whether
child
the
nods

breakfast,

the

head

by

reply,she
The
cat

enunciates has

affir

mative

proposition,

breakfasted/' just

i6a

ON

PROPOSITIONS.

if she said yes, or repeated the words. as clearly But in general wethat language is the say may in natural therefore expression of thought, and general the Proposition is a Judgment expressed in
as

words. We
A may
now

define

Proposition:

Proposition (irpoTaa-^,aTro^avo-w, enuntiatiot propositio, effatum)is an expression which predicatio, denies affirms or something of something else
(oratio affirmans vel negans
form of words which
unius

aliquid de aliquo),or a states one thing of another

alio).

(oratioenuntiativa
A

de

the

Proposition consists of three parts or elements: Predicate and Copula. The Subject (vTro/cetSubject,

(jievov,

of a Proposition is that of which subjection) something else is stated.

praedicatum)of a (/car^yopov/jLevov, Proposition is that which is stated of something else.

Predicate

The

appraedicatum) Copula (Trpoa/caTiyyopov/jievov, of a Proposition is the link uniting (is, are) or sepa rating (isnot, are not) the subject and the predicate. in the Thus are proposition: Rattlesnakes Rattlesnakes is the subject of which it poisonous. is stated that they are poisonous, poisonous is the is stated of Rattlesnakes, and are predicate which is the copula uniting them. In the proposition: is the not true Sceptics are philosophers, sceptics the predicate, and are not subject, true philosophers the disunitingcopula. The subject and predicate, inasmuch the extremities the as or they occupy beginning and end of the proposition,are called the Terms (opoi, CLKDCL, termini) of the Proposition. Sinii-

The

AMBIGUITY

OF

THE

WORD

PREDICATE.

263

are iarlyin the proposition,Old men fond of talk and the predicate fond ing, the subject is old men, of talking. In the proposition: The unparalleled

all honest to cause sufficient the subject is the unparalleled to shun his company men to cause audacityof his conduct ; the predicate, sufficient

audacityof

his conduct

is

all honest that

words
one

men

to shun

his

company.
may
are

Hence consist

it is clear of
many

subject
so

and
as

predicate
these words

long
the in

expressiveonly
of
In
a

of

idea. Here reader the

must

be

warned

certain

ambiguity predicate
which well. the In

word in
a

predicate.
different
sense

grammar, from that

as

is used
in

it bears
the

includes and logic, proposition, Idleness

the

copula

demoralizes,

the predi call demoralizes grammarians would be cate ; in the proposition,Dogs bark, bark would the predicate in the grammarians' use of the word. This also that of Aristotle and the terminology was earlier logicians. They broke up the proposition the prf^a, or the into the ovo^ia, or the subject, and predicate. The change in the terminology of and is suggested by logicians is post-Aristotelian,
a

passage

in says

his

treatise the

De

10. Interpretation,

4, in
to

which the

he

that

verb
as

is sometimes
a

added

subject and proposition.1

1

predicate

third

element

in the

orav

5i rb \eyu

rpirov
5e, olov

IOTI
"TTI

fjSr}5i%"s \eyovrat irpoffKaTTiyoprJTai,

SIKOIOS

oi

irrid(o-eis.

avGpwiros.

From

this

expression
irpoo-Kar^-

subsequent
yopovfj.fi/ov,
one

logicians drew
or

the

terra

irpoTaa-fis ^"

Sevrepov
the

propositions secundi
the

where adjacentis,
Trees

copula
are

forms

word

with

predicate,as
or

grow

; and

tic rpirov wpordo-fis Trees

rpo"TKa.Tr)yopovfjL(vov,

tertii adjacentis, as propositicnes

growing-

164

ON

PROPOSITIONS.

A words

Proposition may
from
one

consist

of

any

number
must

o*

to

thousand, but

it

always

capable of being resolved into three terms, viz., he subject, predicate, and copula, e.g., loquitur, he is the speaks,he is speaking, where subject, speaking the predicate, and is the copula. Troja fuit Troy is a city of the past ; Adversantur They arc
" "

be

opponents.
In order
to to

break

up
I.

Proposition we
is it of
to

have
we

only
are

ask

ourselves,

What

which

speaking ? and the give us the subject of

is it that
we

answer

the

question will proposition. 2. What

this of it ? and the
answer

affirm

or

deny

will
some

be

the

person
or

predicate ; while the copula is always singular or plural of the verb to be

the

with

without

negative.

Thus

in

the

pro

Horses position, neigh, that of which we are speak is that ing is Horses : that which we say of them that neigh, and creatures our they are proposition in logical form will be, Horses are neighingcreatures.

proposition,Misers are not generous, is the subject,generous the predicate, are separating copula.
It is not the very easy in in
some a cases

In

the

Misers
not

the

to

distinguish

complicated statement into subject,copula, and predicate. The beginner the object of the verb is prone for the mistake to if asked to predicate,and give the predicate of the Architects build houses, to imagine sentence, houses is the that of builders of predicate,instead There is also the further houses. of dis difficulty of the of to be tinguishing the use present tense

various

elements

v66

ON

PROPOSITIONS.

order

will be

The

eaters

of flesh meat

are

majority

of

mankind.

DIVISIONS

OF

PROPOSITIONS.
a

"

Every Proposition
The the
material and subject

has

material
or

and

element

matter

of

formal element. a Proposition is

for they are the material of which the out predicate, Proposition is made. of the Proposition is the The formal element copula, since it gives it its form and shape, and determines its quality, both its essential quality, whether it is affirmative or negative,and its acci dental it is true or false. Hence quality,whether have three different Divisions of Propositions. we I. According to their matter (that is,according the subject to the relation existing in fact between and predicate), they are divided into four classes. the subject and (a) When predicate are by the of the case united together,the proposi very nature tion is said to be in necessary matter, as, A straight line is the shortest distance between or, any two points,
God exists.

subject and predicate are in point of fact united together,but their union is not of the could conceive of things,but is a fact that we nature said to be in contingent otherwise, they are matter,
(b) When
the
as,

place in which is a signalof danger. they live ; A red light the subject and predicate in point of (c) When fact are not united, but there is nothing in the nature of things to prevent their union, the proposition is said to be in possible matter, as, Horses are not longCats

have

strong

attachment

to

the

NECESSARY

AND

CONTINGENT

PROPOSITIONS.

267

lived

Omnibus

drivers

are

not

remarkable

for

excessive

smoothness

of tongue.
the

subject and predicate are of the of things disunited that they never nature so very and never be found are can together, the proposition is said in impossible diameter to be matter, as, The of a circle is not greater than the circumference ; What
is past cannot These be undone. different kinds of

(d) When

Propositions may be reduced and to two, viz.,necessary contingent. Pro those in positionsin impossible matter simply mean which the predicate is necessarily separated from the subject. There is an element of uncertaintycommon
both

four

Propositions The possiblematter.

to
cr

in

contingent
two

and ideas

to

those that

in
may

fact that
are

may

not

be

united
not

always

found

together in
a

point of fact,does
character.
II. link This second binds which
a

give to
Division

their union

necessary

is based the the

on

the the

tie

or

which

together
is called

subject copula.

and It

pre

dicate, and
essence or

is of the

of
enounce

to

either of the

affirms

some proposition to make something, and as such denies according to or

statement,
enouncement

the

character

copula depends the essential quality of the proposition. Hence, Propo according to their form or essential quality, and sitions are and negative, divided into affirmative
copula, on
the character into
true

of the

and

false.
tcar^yopucrf in

An
or

Affirmative Proposition (rrporaa^

which the the and

is one KarafaTi/cr)), together the subject

copula predicate, and

unites pro-

368

ON

PROPOSITIONS.

Novels works of fiction. as are identity, A Negative Proposition (Trporaa-^ aTro^arircT)or is one the copula disunites the in which trrepijTi/cr)), the subject and predicate, and proclaims their Novels are not text-books ofphilosophy. as diversity,

claims

their

There

are

some

cases

in which does

the presence
not
not

of it

a a

negative in the
the

proposition

render

negative proposition,and subject

their
or

affects

the

copula but

sometimes
that

propositions are in called in Latin Propositionsinfinite, subject or predicate is indefinite in extent, only
or

predicate. Such

being
definite

limited class

in

its
as,

exclusion
Not
to
as

from advance

some

idea:

to

is

to

Rebellion recede,

is non-submission

lawful anthority,
the

Heresy is not to acknowledge the Church, All the actions of

true

teachingof
animals
are

the lower

non-voluntary. These propositions may be reduced without the to difficulty ordinary form : He who Rebellion is a refusal to advance to submit, recedes, fails Heresy is a disavowal of the teaching of the Church, No
actions We

of the lower pointed out

tion

between

voluntary. in a previous chapter the distinc the one terms on hand, and indefinite
are

animals

the other, between terms or nonon negative privative irre voluntary and involuntary, non-religiousand ligious. The one is a direct denial of the positive

opposed, the other denies it indirectly, by asserting something else. If I say that is non-religious, that there is nothing I mean a book
term

to

which

it is

about does

in it,and religion
not
come

that the there

in ; nay,

question of religion is something more

that

implied

in

the

expression,I imply

there

is

no

TRUE

AND

FALSE

PROPOSITIONS.

269

room

for
no

religion in
for

the

book,
the

or

at

all events
I

there

is

need

bringing in religion.
matter

book
not

itself lies outside

imply that the of religion, and

from its pages.
in
see.

merely

that

religion is
is
an we

absent

This

distinction

important

one

guarding

as against fallacies,

shall hereafter

But Liffirm from

or or

if the

the

qualityof propositions is to qualitywhich flows deny, they have another fact of their making an affirmative statement
Such
a

essential

negative.

statement
or

must

either

be

in the

accordance

with

facts

not. to

If it agrees

with

external is said This

to to

it reality be

is said

be

true, if it does

not, it

false. brings us back

allude

concerned We
be
us

cannot

useful in

question we had occasion far is Logic first chapter. How to in our of propositions ? with the truth or falsity attempt to discuss it at length, but it will to guide two to lay down or one principles
to
a

answering
do
we

this
mean

What

question. by truth ?
or common as

We

are

not

speak

ing of
truth.
a

truthfulness Truth is of
is
an

moral

truth,
consent

but

of

logical
to

by

allowed

be

statement

things
internal
one,

they really are.

we

If this

statement

one,
a

have

true

judgment ;

if it is 'an

external
are

true

judgments

always

true,

always

(supposing that to our thoughts). Hence, a true enunciation of a true judgment.

be
true

proposition.If our our propositions will words our correspond proposition is

It is
one

the

But there is

what
a

is

true

judgment
between

? that

in which

conformity

which

the

mind

ON

PROPOSITIONS.

object of thought and that which the object is in itself. Logical truth is the corres pondence of the understanding to the thing under intellectus cum far stood (adaquatio re intdlecta).How
affirms

of

some

correspondence ? have that all Propositions are either a We seen In the former the predicate is or a posteriori. priori in or necessarily united to the subject. In contained
can

Logic

secure

this

the

latter the

connection
a

between

predicate dependent simply on

1. as

is not
on our

necessary

the
own a

evidence mental

subject and but a contingent one, of external facts, not logician can propositionis subject, in it,or
were on

the

processes.

In

all
at

prioripropositions the
determine
He has

such
or see

once

whether

true

false. whether
to
a

and

the
some

only to analyze the predicate is contained

law.
and If
a

united
to

it

by

necessary
to

friend
me

make

voyage had

the moon, found

a

inform

his

return
were

that he
not

circle of which in the

moon

the radii whenever

14
so

all

you

added of

equal,and together 5
I should
moon

that
and

7 it

invariablymade
he had
been

instead struck
2.

12,

opine
as

that

with
In
a

the

to

be

moonstruck.

propositions the logician,as posteriori determine that a proposition presented to such, can if it is in oppositionto some law. him is false, a priori
If I
from
were

to

be

told, for instance, that of

to

two

roads

New

York
on

Chicago
said to be

one

was

shorter
a

than
map

the
to

other, and

comparing
one a

them

on

correct went

find that the

two

shorter the
at

along
resent

the

sides

of

while triangle,

other
once

travelled the

straightalong

the

base, I should

LOGIC

AS

TEST

OF

TRUTH.

271

assertion,
matical
3.

as

being opposed

to

an

priori mathe

law.

Similarly,if a proposition presented to the other logicianis in opposition to some proposition other grounds on kind) that he knows (of whatever to be sentence to pass true, he can proceed at once proposition. If respecting the falsityof this new
I know tells
eats
me

that he

all hawks has

a

are

carnivorous,

and

friend
and

hawk

that will not and

touch

meat,

preserved apricots,I conclude that my friend is either joking with me, or is mistaken in thinking that his bird is a hawk. My that the proposi truth tells me knowledge of logical
nothing
but

biscuits

tion, This

hawk

is not
are

carnivorous, is incompatible
therefore is false. of

with, All hawks

4. But
are

carnivorous,and
case
a

in

the

which
nor

opposed
to

neither
I

propositions posteriori of thought, law to any

possess,
or

to

any

knowledge
deal
to

already
their

Logic

is

incompetent
I
am

with the

truth

falsity. If
moon

asked

accept

proposition,The
is
no means

is

made

of

green

cheese, there
true
own or

of

saying
I

whether

it

is

false, unless
some

indeed

have

already made my the composition

with that the
one now

proposition respecting
which
to
me.

of

the

moon,

is at If I

variance
am

presented
are

told

in China

there
may

blue

flamingoes
I

which

sing

I beautifully,

smile

incredulously,but
unless
nature

I cannot
a or

contradict

the

statement

have, either from

of the

knowledge
from the

of the

internal

flamingo,

testimony of others, already accepted among convictions the propositions: All flamingoes art my musical. In a word, Logic red, No flamingoes are

172

ON

PROPOSITIONS.

can

detect
can

formal, but
determine

not

material
or

truth

and

falsity,
can

it i.e.9

truth

but not if by the formal laws external investigationand required to verifythe propositionsin question. third Division of Propositions is based III. The their quantity of indi is, the number ; that upon viduals to whom they are applicable. In this division

decided

falsityif of Thought, experience are

it

be

predicate is not concerned ; it is the extension alone of the subject on which depends the quantity of the proposition. Propositions are divided according to theirquantity into Universal, Particular, Singular, and Inde
the

finite.
i.

Universal
asserted

Proposition
of each

is

one

in which

the

predicate is

and

all the

individuals

comprised under the subject. The subject has the sign all or none prefixed to it, and is said to be used distributively, or distributed, are as, All flatterers dangerouscompanions,All material thingsare liable to decay,No
We
squares

must,

Jivesides. however, distinguish three

or

have

kinds

of

Universality. (a) Metaphysical

the

Perfect
are

subject and
under
no can

predicate

in which Universality, so inseparably united, and

as,

that

possible case
are

possible circumstances they be separated,

animals
can

in

no

All
sin.

circles

round. No

irrational

commit

(b) Physical Universality;

predicate
are

when

according to be separated by

invariably and the ordinary course

the
power

subject and inseparably united

of nature,
or

the

but
a

may

of God

by

miracle,

274

ON

PROPOSITIONS.

the in which Singular Proposition is one of one, and predicate is asserted one only, of the individuals comprised under the subject, is as, Casar This stone is valuable. famous in history, Under what head to class Singular Pro are we Particulars? under Universals positions? Under or be said that in a Singular Proposition the It may of the whole of the subject, predicate is asserted and, therefore, that Singulars should be reckoned as Universals. is not the question, but whether, This when member the predicate is asserted only of one of the class, it is asserted only of a portion,or of all the class.
Now

3. A

if I assertion
the

say,

This

Hottentot

is
to

a a

great
smaller

rascal, .my

has

reference nation
than

portion of
Some
case

Hottentot
are

the

proposition
same name. a more

Hottentots
even

great rascals.

The

is the London

is

restricted

subject be a proper a necessarilybe large city,must proposition than, Some cities are

if the

if the latter should be reckoned large cities; and A Singular the former. under much more Particulars, has extension term whatever, and a Singular no

Proposition possibleform
one

is to

be

reckoned the

as

the

most

limited

capable. Indeterminate or Proposition is Indefinite 4. An in which the subject has no sign of quantity
before

of which

Particular

is

going

it, as, Frenchmen

are

polite, Angels

are

with Indeter to deal are we beings. How spiritual minate to decide must Propositions? We manage I say When somehow. their quantity for them I mean French do that Frenchmen some are polite, I say that Angels When all Frenchmen? or men,

7N DEFINITE

PROPOSITIONS.

275

some beings, do I mean spiritual Angels, or all In order decide this to Angels ? question with regard to any given Indefinite Proposition, we have are

to

Judgments, given above.1 there said that all Judgments We either a priori are when the or analytical, subject and predicate are necessarily connected together, or a posteriori or syn when the union of subject and thetical, predicate is the inner of based nature on experience, not on things. In the latter case they are united, so far as
we

refer to the

Division

of

know,

in

point
their them
to

of fact, but

there
a

is

no

absolute

necessity for might reveal

former latter
are

union,
apart
be

and

wider
one

experience
The the and

from in

another.

said

drawn

necessary,

in

contingent matter,
matter

because

predicate,the
case

of the
and

subject and proposition, in the one

other
may is

the

must

be
an we

united,

in the

be

united.
to to
are

When
us,

Indefinite
to

Proposition
it
a

presented

and

have

assign
the

ask

ourselves absolute
must

whether

have quantity,we subject and predicate

or

of

they
found

be

necessity connected found together, or

found If the

not

whether

whether another

they
time

may

sometimes

be

together, at
former,
; to

be in

apart.
is
a am

the

proposition quantity
to

question
Thus,

Universal
asked

if the

latter,a
a

Particular. the

if I

assign

proposition,Triangles have all their interior angles the equal to two right angles, I recognize at once of the nature between necessity of the connection the sum of its angles, and a triangle and pronounce
it at
once a

Universal.
1

If

have

to

decide

re-

Pp. 256,

257.

276

ON

PROPOSITIONS.

Dwellers specting the proposition,

I be ask

myself whether weakly by the nature

there is
no

that

necessary

weakly, in a city must dweller I perceive of things, and connection between city
in cities are I therefore pronounce

life and

feeble health, and

be
a

the

proposition to
cities
cases are

Particular,viz.,Some
It is true

dwellers in
are

weakly.
between

that

there

many

in which

it is difficult to decide

whether

the

connection
sary
to
or

subject and
if I
am

not.

Thus,

the

proposition,Bears
whether
a

predicate is neces asked to assign a quantity are animals, I four-footed by

any kind

consider
be bility

there
to whom

could
we

of the

possi
name

biped
account
us.

should

give
the

of Bear
familiar

on

of its If there

to similarity

quadruped
an

to

should
to

be

discovered
but

animal

in

all

always on two given to it ? We question of fact.

to

things like legs,should

leave It is

Bruin,
name

walking
Bear be

the

of the
to

our

readers the
to

settle th'e

only

duty

of the

logician
the
say bears
to

say

that

on

the

answer

it will

depend
are or

quantity of
that
are

the
bears

Some

we proposition; whether are animals, four-footed

All

animals. four-footed But

we

have of

extension

predicate never
the
members

speaking hitherto only of of the proposition. Is the subject used of each and distributed,i.e.,
been

the the
all

of the

class ?

The

extension

of

the

proposition does not depend on the extension of the in all its the predicate is used predicate,and when extension, there is,as a rule,no sign of universality prefixedto it. standing of the
Yet

it is necessary of the

to

the due

under
we

nature

proposition that

RULES

OF

DISTRIBUTION.

277

should
used

know

when

the

i.e., predicate is distributed,

extension,
of the down of the the
so as

in all the
to

fulness

of its

to

have when rules

reference it is
not.

all the We may

members

class, and

lay

following

respectingthe
I.
not

Distribution

Predicate. is

In

an

Affirmative least

Proposition the predicate

as

distributed, at

far

as

the

form

of

the
are

proposition

is concerned.

If I say, All
not

omnibuses of

I am public or private vehicles, whole of the class of public or

speaking

the

there well. is

are

So

private vehicles, for "c., as carts, cabs, coaches, broughams, if I say, Some books are very uninteresting, it
exhaust the class of of the whole that
we

equally clear that I do not or speak uninterestingobjects,

But
we

of them. that in
an

must

observe

here the

say

Affirmative tributed tion.

so

Proposition
far
as concerns are reason cases

dis predicate is not the form of the proposi in virtue of the

But

there

in which

matter,
referred in

i.e., by
to, it may

of

the

particular objects
This All of is the
case

be

distributed. When
I say,

all Definitions.
I figures,

trianglesan
it is

three-sided

am

speaking

all three-sided

figures as
true

All
not

quite as that that All three-sided figures are ac triangles, holds good, three-sided figures. This are triangles Definitions, but of every sort only of all Formal
well
as

of all triangles,and

of

Definition
as a

and

Description.
which bird
name,

If
to

describe its eggs

cry

the
in

cuckoo the
nest

bird

is wont and
rny.

lay
a

of
to

another

utters

corre

sponding

its

rather of

roundabout
a

description will, if put in^the form Proposition, distribute its predicate

Universal
of the

in virtue

ON

PROPOSITIONS.

fact that

there

are

no

other

birds

that

imitate

the

of the peculiarities
The
same an

cuckoo. if I

is true interested

give

synonym,

as,

is sycophant

A II giraffes are flatterer,

camel-

and it appliesalso to all propositionsin which opavds, the predicate is the differentia or any other property belonging exclusivelyto the class which forms the

subject as, All since spinners,

world which
II.
save men

men

cook
are

their
no

are food, All spiders

webthe

there who
save

other their

beings
food,
no

in

cook

insects

spin
In
a

webs

spiders. Negative Proposition

in the

the

predicate is
made. It
or

always distributed, that is,every individual belonging

to

the

class is included
not

assertion

matters

whether
or

the the

proposition is Universal
The of
a

Particular,

whether
or

subject of the proposition

presence

is distributed

not.

negative

the copula always involves the distribution affecting Thus of the predicate. in the proposition, No the whole of the class of are men of letters, savages
men literary

is excluded

from

the

class

of savages
from

as

well class

as

the

whole

of the

class of
the

savages

the

of
are

kettles articles
set

In literary men. made not of tin,the

made

proposition, Some
of
the class
oi

whole

of tin is excluded referred

the

from these

the

particular
turn
are

of kettles from
we

to, and
class the

in their

excluded
Hence

whole
at

of articles

of tin.
the

arrived

following rules for

distribution

of the terms

distribute Propositions tions distribute their

proposition. Universal their subject, Negative Proposi

a or predicate,

of

if

we

call

the

Universal

Affirmative

by

the

letter A, the

Universal

RULES

OF

DISTRIBUTION.

279

Negative
by
letter the

by
letter

the

letter

E,

the

Particular

Affirmative

I,
rules

the for the both neither the

Particular distribution

Negative
will be
:

by

the

O,
A

our

distributes distributes distributes distributes

subject
subject

only
and

E I O

predicate;
nor

subject predicate

predicate;

only.
in the mnemonic

These lines:

letters

are

commemorated

asserts

and each O

denies,
the whole

See,
I
asserts

they
and

comprise

denies,
alone

Each

to

some

applies.1

To

these

convenient

letters

we

shall

presenth

recur.

"

Asserit Aj^erit

A,

negat negat

E,

verum

generaliter

ambae. ajnbo.

I,

O,

sed

particularity

CHAPTER
IMPORT
OF

III.
KINDS

PROPOSITIONS. OF
PROPOSITIONS.

VARIOUS

Import

Propositions Comprehension and of Predicate Import Propositions The

" "

of

Extension
not
"

"

Primary
in of kinds

quantified
Conditional and Modal

thought

"

Sir
"

W.

Hamilton's

theory

Various
"

Propositions

Hypothetical Pure Propositions Disjunctive Hypotheticals of Modal Propositions Nature Propositions.

" " "

Categoricals and

WE

have

seen

that their

Propositions
into their
; to

may

be

divided

according tingent ;
Affirmative dental
their

to

matter

according
and

Necessary and Con essential quality into

to

Negative

according
False. them

their

acci

and quality into True quantity we have divided

According to into Universal,

; and
we

Particular, Indefinite, and

Singular

have

Propositionsto the class of Uni versal Particular a or according as they are priori or a propositions,while Singular Proposi posteriori have tions we relegated to the class of Particulars.
assigned
Indefinite
We words
must
on mean now

pause

for of

moment

to

say

few it
or we

the

Import
our

Propositions,and
of the
and
at

what

is

we

by
of
a

assertion

agreement

disagreement
must

subject

discuss

little more

predicate. This length, and in conneo

IMPORT

OF

PROPOSITIONS.

A IIgarnets are precious position, stones,I unconsciously begin to analyze my idea of a garnet and my idea ol
a

precious

stone

to

see

if in

they

coincide.

I think and

of the

all that idea of

stone

is contained

the

idea of garnet
of
a

precious stone;
divide
whether
a

of all the marks

all other
are

precious
and I in the

that

it off from

stones,

examine idea of

these If

marks

all found
assert

garnet.

again
men,

I should I must

that

No
my

are shopkeepers

learned

first

analyze
is compre

notion hended
idea

of

shopkeeper
the
men

and

all that
I must

under

term,
; and
see

and

also

of learned

then

compare is any

analyze my togetherthe

contents

of each, to the

if there which

contradiction

between

keeper
men as

as

down be

the

belong to the shop such, and those which belong to learned such. I shall not be justifiedin laying proposition unless such contradiction can
to

attributes

shown
Do

exist. the
same

I at

time

think

of

the

subject and
I say all all

predicate as
garnets
that
are

classes ?

It is true stones,

that

when

precious
the

the

vord

implies

if all

garnets
a

brought together into

found
to

existing in the world were big heap, this heap would be

of
a

be

prisingall
this is not
and
as

the

portion precious stones

is

small

larger heap
mind

com

of the universe.
to

But

what

present
of
as

my

primarily
I
am

the

Import

the
a

proposition.
I do
not

not

thinking
1

of garnets

class.1

cast

my

This
oxen

All
my

excellently expressed by Mill. do I mean ruminate, what by all oxen

is

When
I have

judge
no

that
in

image
them
oxen

mind
I
am

of all
not

oxen.

do

not,

nor

ever

shall, know
I

all of
'

and

thinking

even

of all those

do

know.

All

THE

PREDICATE

NOT

QUANTIFIED

IN

THOUGHT.

283

mental whether is not mental there

stone
a

eye

over

collection
not

of

garnets
them
my
see one

to

see

there

may

be but

among

which of

precious stone, sight the nature

be
among

pierce by
garnet
to

power

of the

whether
a

may
one

the
is not
to

characteristics found in it.

of In
to
an

precious
technical

which
not

terms

I look

the

extension,but
it
as

the

compre
not
as

hension
a

of the

subject. I regard
with the

idea,

class. If this is
so

subject, much
When be of
I say
some

more

is it the

case

with

the

predicate.
there
may

All
excuse

garnets
for of

arc

preciousstonest
notion
as

the

that word

am

speaking

the

class

garnets,

gives a certain colour to it. But there is no of ground for asserting that I am sort as a class,or considering thinking of precious stones all or whether of them are some comprised in the
all class the the the of garnets. idea idea
two
a

the

All

that
stone

am

thinking invariably
have

of

is that
to

of

precious
and

is
I

united mind

of garnet.
ideas

What

in

my

is that the
are

their
I

co-existence.
may
turn

It is true my

by

further

process

mind

to

consideration other

of

the
stones

question
besides whole class

whether

there
;

precious
constitute

garnets
of

whether

garnets
in
my

the

precious stones
"

thoughts

does

not

mean

particular animals
have the the compose be be

it

means

the which
an

objects, whatever
oxen are

they recognized,

may

be, that
which
shall will

attributes notion
as

by
of

and

ox,

wherever

these

attributes

found. found

There,
also
:

judge,
the

the

attribute

of

ruminating

that

is

entire

is a meaning in attributes, Its meaning import of the judgment. and subjects, but merely as all attributes nothing else. It supposes them." Philosophy, (Examination oj Sir W Hamilton's p. 425. suppose
.

*"4

IMPORT

OF

PROPOSITIONS.

or

only

part of it.
no

But

in the

tion I took consider fresh

notice I do
as

of this
not

original proposi I question, and when

I have been

it now,

by considering it elicit any

or

information of all

to whether

ing

precious stones,
has
been
as an

only

of

some.

speak My
terms

statement

indefinite one,
as

and

indefinite

it must
concerned. may be

remain,

far

the
men

force of the
are

is

If I say, All

rational

animals, it
class oi

quite
animals
as

true

that

the

whole

of
the

the

rational but the

as

is exhausted

by
the

class of men, this is not

far

the

proposition is
I turn

concerned

case.

When

from

natural

meaning
of

of the the two tension

proposition which asserts ideas, to the question of of the two classes, I

I
am

the co-existence the have

respective ex
no

data

for

deciding whether
class I
can

must
can

alludingto the whole of the of rational animals of them. or only to some learn this fact only by external inquiry. I I universe search all through the before the question whether there other decide are
animals
in

rational

besides Sirius

men,
or

whether in
me

there
As

are a

Houyhnhnms logician,with All men sition,

about

the

moon.

nothing
are

before

but

the

propo

rational

animals, I
to ?

know

nothing
in
or

it. does all this

amount

What

That

proposition I speak neither predicate as classes, but as their comprehension, not me

the
case

of

the

subject
I have

the

ideas. their

before
In

extension.

of the
I have

subject,when
before
means

Universal,
attached
to

me,

it,the

of

proposition is a in the sign of quantity knowing that the whole

the

SIR

W.

HAMILTON'S

THEORY.

283

of the
of

class

is

included, but
with

I have
to

no

such

source

information

respect
in

the

predicate.

In

other

words,

we

do not

thoughtquantifythe predicate
facts to find
a man

ofpropositions.
It is

strange

in

face

of these

of

Hamilton ability of Sir W. proposing to quantify the predicate of all propositions. He makes this proposal on the ground that we ought to is already understood in language what thought. This principle is a perfectlysound one, I but do we not, as unhappily for his argument, shown have above, quantify the predicate in our the he has to thoughts. Let us hear what say on subject.
state
"

the

in

In

proposition,

the

two

terms,

the

Subject

and This

Predicate, have

each

quantity is not for language always always understood.

Men
mean are

quantity in thought. always expressed in language,

their
to

tends For

abbreviation
in the

; but

it is

example,
do
we

proposition,
We do
not
are

animals, what
some we

mean

? of

that

men,
use

to

the

exclusion

others,

animals, but

the
men.

abbreviated

expression men
in virtue

for the thought of its

all

Logic, therefore,

requires, us to state postulate, warrants, nay this explicitly. Let therefore, overtly quantify us, far animals. So the subject, and are men say, All have dealt with the proposition, we have we quan tified in language the subject, as it was quantifiedin
"

thought.
said
"

But
men

the
are

predicate
animals.
we mean

still remains.
But

We
do
we or

have
mean some

A II

what

by

animals
?

? Not

Do

all
;

animals,

animals

the

former

for

dogs, horses,

oxen,

"86

IMPORT

OF

PROPOSITIONS.

"c.
oxen,

are

animals
are

as men.

well

"c.,

not

dogs, horses, Men, therefore,are animals,

as

men,

and

but
men,

exclusively of therefore, are

is,
men we are we

that all in

cannot

All "c. dogs, horses, oxen, not equivalent to all animals ; cannot we think, that say, as But
we can men

all

animals.
do

say,
are

for
some

thought
All

affirm, that
false

all

animals.'11 this goes

on a

assumption

as

to

the

that the exten import of propositions. It assumes of a proposition is present to our sion of the terms when the proposition; that when mind we lay down animals I say All men I am not are merely explicitly
,

of two also ideas, but am stating the coincidence class in a explicitlystating the inclusion of one It also implies,that when I assert this larger one.
I am proposition,
are

in

all

animals, or,

thought affirmingeither/!// men All men are some animals, whereas nothing of the
as a

point of fact I do thinking of animals

in
an

sort

am

not
as

class my
to

at

all,but simply
of
man. a

idea

coincident Hamilton
an

with
goes
on

idea
say

When

Sir W.
is

that

proposition

in notions two equation between so complete a respect of their extension, he shows misconception of what the meaning of a proposition not is,that we are surprised at the wild proposals

simply

into which
not

he
that in
a

is drawn
a

by

his

untrue

theory. It

is

true

the class

proposition states the inclusion of of two larger one, or the co-extension

same an

classes of the
is proposition
1

extension.

It is not

true

that

equation

between
IV.

the
pp.

subject and

Sir

W.

Hamilton's

Lectures, Vol.

270, 271.

VARIOUS

KINDS

OF

PROPOSITIONS.

287

the
men

predicate.
are

It is not
we are

true

that when
admit

we

say

All

animals there
to

in other
to

any

way

the

question
men;

whether therefore

animals

besides would

and
a

advert

it in

language

be of

mis

representationof our thoughts. Instead improvement in Logic, it would divorce into ordinary language and introduce ology not only clumsy and mischievous
but whole

being an Logic from it a phrase

in his

practice,
the
the

founded
doctrine
as

on

predicate, ground.
It is it would
true

Hence assumption. of respecting the quantification based false theory, falls to on a

a

false

that

it has

certain

conveniences

in that

that and logical processes simplifycertain there are be certain to propositions which appear the subject (but are not really) an equation between of Sir and predicate. But it is strange that a man be led astray by so wild Hamilton's could W. ability should Aristotle venture to condemn a theory, and follow in his steps as guilty and all philosophers who of a cardinal because error they did not recognize in Propositions a meaning rejected by mankind unnatural into an shape generally, or force them which
no one

would

adopt

outside

the

pages

of

logical manual.
We

now

proceed
Our

Propositions.
of the

distinguishvarious examples hitherto have

to

kinds
been

of

only

the Proposition,in which or disagreement of the subject and the agreement in the most predicate is asserted plain and straight

simplest

form

of

forward

way.

Such

propositions

are

termed

in

"88

IMPORT

OF

PROPOSITIONS.

as Logic CategoricalPropositions, making a simple But statement. they are opposed to Hypothetical which state Propositions, only the dependence of one

statement

on

another.1
are

Hence

Propositions Hypothetical.
A
or

I.

divided

into

and Categorical

the agreement CategoricalProposition asserts disagreement of the subject and predicate without
sort

any

of condition either

or

alternative.

Categorical

Propositions are subject of

all and
a

when there is a single simple, single predicate, as The inhabitants

are

wine-producingcountries

temperate;

or

compound, when several subjects and predicates are united by connecting particlesin a single sentence,
as

No

man

boy
your

is both
treasure

angel can create a grain of dust headstrong,idle, and quarrelsome.

or

This

Where

is, there

will

your

"

heart

be

also.

Such
up

compound
into two
A
or

always be propositions can more simple propositions.

the

broken

Proposition asserts Hypothetical proposition on

subdivisions.
A

of
are

one

another

as,

// men

dependence grumble they

admit of

miserable.

Hypothetical Propositions
Proposition contains together
on

three
i.

Conditional

two

cate
a

goricalpropositions united
that
the
one as

in

such
the

way

is the

condition
is bad, the be

which

other

depends,

// trade

for poor suffer large.

it.

If a

novel is dull, the sale will not

1

The

use

of

the

word
was

is
we

not

Aristotelian, but
stated
as

in this sense, categorical (KarrjyopiKbs) introduced by later logicians. As has

the

have

of affirmative

categorical, in Aristotle, opposed to negative.

above,

meaning

290

"IMPORT

OF

PROPOSITIONS.

proposition, Every ont his money who becomes rich acquires either by trade of by speculation, propositionwould be false because my
such as acquiring money, profession, inheritance, "c. by some Similarly, if a man and I lay down is found the drowned, was murdered, or he proposition, Either this man in that it committed suicide, proposition is faulty, my omits
the I omit

Thus

if I laid

down

the

other

methods

of

third

alternative, that

he

may

have

fallen

into the water

Rule
2.

by
there

accident.
must
true

All the members is

a no

not

be true

together.

If

they

are,

them, e.g., Either

three

disjunction between has three sides, it has or triangle

must not

angles.
3. All the members all
i

Rule

be

falsetogether.
is not

For

if

they
and I.

are

false, every
is broken
: or

alternative for

exhausted Charles

Rule
a

was

just King,
to

example, Either his subjects were

in puttinghim justified

death,

is one HypotheticalProposition Conjunctive are of simple propositionswhich consists which joined together by an affirmative par incompatible,
3. A

No as ticle,
may be

one

can

have
as a

his cake

and

eat

it.

Or

it

described

proposition which

denies

that the two

at

the

same

simple propositionsit contains can be It is necessarilyalways time true.

form.

negative in
II.

Propositions are

also

divided

into Pure

and

Vfodal.
A Pure
de inesse) is Proposition(propositio
one

in

MODAL

PROPOSITIONS.

291

which
ment

the

assertion

of and

the

agreement

or

disagree

of the without

subject
any

and
are

simply as qualification, Equilateral triangles

is
one

predicate

is made

equiangular. A Modal Proposition

is said
to

in

which the

the

pre

dicate in
a

agree

or

disagree with

subject

or as particular mode Equilateral manner, are triangles necessarily equiangular. The mode does affect the subject only, nor not the existing predicate only, but the connection

between

them.
so

The
and

distinction other

between

Modals

properly
are

called,
called

propositions which
be
the

sometimes in Modals
as

Modals,
ex-Cathedra The

is to

found mode

in

this,

that the
are

properly so
The
;

called

affects
a

copula,

true necessarily

sentence

of definitions passed by any

Pope of the

In all other possiblya false one. Hares Modals it affects the predicate, run as swiftly, the copula but the adverb affects not when swiftly the proposition is equivalent to the predicate, and Hares the simple proposition, are swift of foot,and

English judges

is

therefore There

not
are

true

Modal.
Modes and of
:

four

the

Necessary,
the the

the

Con

tingent,the Possible,
modes another the
to
a are

the these

Impossible.
:

All other is but of

variations

Certain

form

of

the

Necessary,

Uncertain

Contingent,
certain
to
are

the

Probable
on

of the
our

Possible
a

joined
certain

approbation
its truth.
we

part and
Modals?

leaning
How

They are reallyonly simple Categorical Propositionsof which is the predicate. the word expressing the mode
to

deal

with

IMPORT

OF

PROPOSITIONS,

Thus,

The

statements

of falseness
is

informers of
an

are

possibly

false
statements

is

equivalent
is

to

The

informer's
an

possible;
should

or,

It be

possible Many
is

that

informer's
cures

state

ments

false.

of

the

at

Lourdes

are

certainly
the
is
cures

miraculous

equivalent
are

to

That
is

many

of
This In

at

Lourdes
true

miraculous

certain.

the

only
a

way

of is

dealing
to

with

Modals. Universal often

some

cases

Modal

equivalent
Modal

Proposition,
reason

and

an

Indefinite
be

may
a

by

of

its

mode

resolved the
mode

into is if it the is

simple Necessary Contingent

mortal

propo
or

sition the

Universal,
;

if

Impossible
Thus
to

Particular,
:

or

Possible. valent
A

Men

are

necessarily
Street Some

is

equi

II

men

are

mortal.

beggars
street

are

probably
are

undeserving undeserving. meaning

is thus and

is

equivalent
But in

to

beggars
of

each of the

case

some

portion
is

the if
it

force

proposition

lost

transformed.

CHAPTER
ON
THE OPPOSITION

IV

AND

CONVERSION

OF

PROPOSITIONS.

Opposition
of Various sion

Propositions Contraries Opposition

" "

of

Various
and
"

kinds

of

Opposition
"

"

Lawn
"

Subcontraries
Laws

Conversion
"

kinds
contra
"

of

Conversion

of

Conversion
contra.

Conver

per

Value

of

Conversion

per

WE

discussed

in

our

last

chapter
the

the

Import

of Prothe

and positions,

condemned

of quantification Hamilton
We
as

predicate proposed

by

Sir. W. in kinds

false in further from Con certain

unworkable theory and distinguished various each

practice.
of

Propositions
laid
down

other, Categorical from

from

and Hypothetical,
we

ditional rules

Disjunctive;
govern

and We

which

each.
and

divided and
so

Propositions, pointed
out

moreover,

into

Pure

Modal,

what how

constitutes Modals We
now are come

modality properly
to

called, and

be
to

dealt the
same

with. relation
to

each
and

other

of

Propositions having
If
are

the

subject
and

predicate.

they
not

have

the

same

subject
must

identical, there them, and

of this

predicate and yet be some diversity

consist
one

between in
a

must diversity

either
i*

different

quality,

in

that

of

them

294

OPPOSITION

AND

CONVERSION

OF

PROPOSITIONS.

affirmative in that
in
one

and

the

other
and

negative, or
the

is universal
both and

other

quantity, 01 particular,

of

difference
universal

being
and

quantity and quality, one the other particular affirmative, being particularand
one

of

negative, or negative,and the

Such

else the
other

universal affirmative.

and

propositions are said to shall see, other, although, as we

in
some are cases

be

to each opposed the opposition is

verbal
kinds

rather

than

real.

And

as

there

four

Affirmative, Universal tive,

four tion
and

propositions, Negative, Particular Negative,

which
we

of

Universal
Affirma called

Particular the

respectivelyby
kinds

letters A, E, I, O, there
as

will be

of

opposition, according
two

the between and

a

opposi
two
a

is between
or

Universals
a

or

Particulars,
ticular of the
and
a 1.

between
same

Universal
between

Par

or quality,

Universal

Particular

of

different

quality.

Contrary Opposition (evavricoaw) is between Universal two Propositions,A and E, one of which is affirmative and the other negative,as between ('All schoolboys mischievous are (A)
.
.

mischievous are (E) schoolboys 2. Contradictory Opposition (avrl^aa-^) is be Particular Universal tween a a Proposition and from between it in quality; i.e., A and O, differing
. .

( No

or

between

and

I, as

between mischievous
. .

are J All schoolboys

(A)

( Some
or

are schoolboys

not

mischievous

(O) (E)
(I)

between
No
Some
are schoolboys

mischievous
. .

schoolboysare

mischievou"

VARIOUS

KINDS

OF

OPPOSITION.

295

3.

Subcontrary
of

Opposition

is between
and

two

par

ticulars,one negative, e.g.,

( Some

which

is affirmative

the

othet

are schoolboys are schoolboys Opposition

mischievous
.

(I )

I Some
4. Subaltern
and

not

mischievous
.

(O)

is between

Universal between A

the

corresponding particular,e.g.,
between
E

and

I, and
(" All

and

O,

as,
.

are schoolboys are schoolboys

mischievous
. .

(A) (I )

\ Some
or

mischievous

between f No
I
are schoolboys

mischievous
.
.

(E) (O)

Some

are schoolboys

not

mischievous
.

All
are

schoolboys
mischievous

No
are

schoolboys
mischievous

Some
are

schoolboys
mischievous.
are

Some
not

schoolboys
mischievous

These

last two the

kinds
name

of
;

opposition are
is
no

deserving of
between
stance true at
we

there

real

really opposition
not

Subcontraries have
same

and the
; two

Subalterns.

In

the
are

in

given
time

Subcontraries
if the

both is true

the

while

Universal

OPPOSITION

AND

CONVERSION

OF

PROPOSITIONS.

the Particular
be
a

real

always true. opposition between

latter If
a nervous

is

There the

may,

however,
and

Universal
as a

the

Particular, if the
of the Universal.
All that testily

is intended

correction declares there for the

old bachelor

are schoolboys

and mischievous,

fore he

will not

have

his little nephew

Jiome

and holidays, fou

are

I in
some

wrong,

opposition to him say : No, sir, mischievous, but are schoolboys

well-behaved lad, quite your nephew Charlie is a most the reverse of mischievous,it is true that there is an

opposition between old gentleman and

tute matter

the
the

Universal Particular arises

mere

asserted

by

the

which from

I substi the

for

it.

But

this

only
The

special
that
I

in
on

question.
the
word
to
some

emphasis
that that
if my
some

throw

shows

assertion school

gives my boys
any
are

friend

understand
some are

mischievous,
the two

not.

Between

Particulars

there

never

can

be

they opposition, since the objects of which The section of. altogether different. speak are mis that they are I assert not schoolboys of whom Some not are chievous, in the proposition, schoolboys the section mischievous, is altogether apart from else may of which one justlyaffirm that they some in the proposition,Some mischievous are schoolboy*
are

mischievous. We
I.

may

now

give the
cannot

Laws
true

of

Contraries

be

Opposition. but can together,

be

false together. (a) They cannot

that the
to

every

together,for if it is true predicate (mischievousness)is to be assigned member of the class that forms the subject
be
true

tg8 OPPOSITION

AND

CONVERSION

OF

PROPOSITIONS

boys,
correct.

and

both

my

propositions may
be

be

perfectlj
if
a

(b)

But

they

cannot

false

together, for

Particular

is false the is true

contradictoryof
the

it is true, and

if the Universal it is also true.

not

Particular
some

If it is false that

be true that mischievous, it must that are more mischievous, and much boys are mischievous. of two subcontraries Hence, if one

coming under schoolboys are all schoolboys

some

school

is true,
one

the of

other them

may

be

true

and

may
must

be be

but if false,
true.

is false the

other

4. Subaltern

Propositions may
the the

be

true

or together,

fake together.
This the is because But

Particular
truth

is included the
the

in

Universal. truth

of

Universal of falsity

implies the

of the Particular,and the

are

the Particular If it is true

much
more

of implies the falsity that all schoolboys that

some

Universal. mischievous

is it true
;

mischievous mischievous
are

if it is false
more

much

is the

schoolboys are that some schoolboys are it false that all schoolboys
truth
of

mischievous.
not

But the

the

Particular the of

does

imply

truth of the Universal, and

the

does not of the Universal imply falsity obvious. the Particular,as is sufficiently of Compound Opposition in the case

truth

and laws

Modal
as

Propositions follows exactly the of those that are simpleand pure.

ON
THE

same

that

CONVERSION

OF

PROPOSITIONS.
mean

"

By

the

Conversion

of

we Proposition

the

transposition

VARIOUS

KINDS

OF

CONVERSION.

299

of

its

terms

so

that

the

predicate
either be be

becomes
new

the
pro

subject and

the

subject the predicate. The

included kinds

positionthus formed must the original, at least must or

we

equivalentwith
under

it, as

shall
1.

see.

There

are

three

of Conversion.

Simple Conversion the transposition of the and also the proposition,

If the

subject and Universal they must

place when, after terms, the quantity of the the same. qualityremain Universal before, predicate were remain ; if Negative, Negative;
takes

if

Affirmative, Affirmative
;
as

they

must

remain

if

Particular, Particular
Some old
men

are

talkative,
are

Some
No No
2.

talkative creatures Christians

are are

old

men.

good

cannibals,
Christians. takes

cannibals

good
after

Conversion

per accidcns

place when
becomes

the
a

Universal

Proposition
as

conversion

Particular,

All Catholics Some No who

regard the Pope as infallible, Catholics. are regard the Pope as infallible

good Christians are cannibals, Some good Christians are not cannibals.
3.

Conversion

per

contra

takes

place

when becomes
as

an

Affirmative

Negative,
All
men

or

Proposition a Negative
who
,

after becomes
in

conversion

Affirmative,
are profession

rise

high

their

men

of ability
No
men

who

are

not

men

rise high in of ability

their

or,

profession, rise high in None but men of ability

their

profession.

joo OPPOSITION
No
animals

AND

CONVERSION

OF

PROPOSITIONS.

that do

not

suckle

their young

are

mammals,
All The
1.

mammals Laws

suckle

their young.
are as

of Conversion

follows

The
are

mative

(a) The
"s

Negative and the Particular Affir capableof Simple conversion. Universal Negative, for since the subject
excluded from the

Universal

wholly
the

predicate, it

follows

that

from the predicate is wholly excluded from quadrilateral, subject. If triangleis excluded is excluded from triangle. quadrilateral Particular Affirmative, for it asserts the (b) The

partial agreement
whence
agrees

of the also

subject with
that the

it follows with
the

predicate, predicate partially

the

subject. The Universal Affirmativeand Universal Nega 2. tive are capable of conversion per accidens. (a} The Universal Affirmative,for ifthe Universal is true, the Particular Affirmative,All rogues are liars, liars is also true, and Affirmative, Some rogues are
therefore
true.

its converse,

Some

liars

are

rogues, is likewise

(6) The
which is the
be

Universal

Negative, for
converse

if the

Universal Particular
thieves
are are

simple
true.

is true, the

will also

If it is true
converse,

that, No
honest
men

the simple honest,

is also

No

thieves,
are

true, and

therefore,Some

honest

men

not

is also thieves,
3.

true.

The

Universal

Negative are
Conversion fact that
to

Affirmativeand the Particular of conversion by contraposition. capable the on by contraposition is based of two assert an objects of agreement

CONVERSION

PER

CONTRA.

301

thought, is
with the of the

to

deny

the

agreement
of the

of

either To the

of them
assert nature

contradictory
between is of

other.
and

agreement
the

gentleness
to

turtle-dove the
nature

deny

the

agreement
and
non-

between

the

turtle-dove

gentleness.
We
All

desire to
are

convert

the

Universal

Affirmative.,

turtle-doves
to

gentle.This
the the

proposition is equi
:

valent
are

the

Negative
Now

Proposition
Universal

No

turtle-doves

not

gentle.
is the

converted which with

simply,and
converse we

of

Negative can be result will be a proposition the Universal Proposition

:

which No
or, or,

started, viz.

not-gentlebirds
but

are are

turtle-doves

; ;

None

gentle birds
are

turtle-doves

Only gentlebirds
other of

turtle-doves. the

On
two

the

hand,

to

assert

disagreement
the

of of

objects
of
assert
some

thought,
with the

is to

assert

agreement
of of

each To in the that

them the
cases

contradictory
of the idea of costermonger,
cases

the

other.

disagreement
from that in those

politeness
is to
assert

agreement
of

of costermonger

with

non-politeness.
Some Some

costermongers costermongers

are are

polite not-polite
not
. .

(O) (I)

The

Particular
we

Negative
are now

has
able

become
to convert

Particular it

Affirmative,and
to, Some
Some

simply

not-polite beingsare costermongers ; who are not polite are costermongers.

302

OPPOSITION

AND

CONVERSION

OF

PROPOSITIONS.

This

sort

of conversion

is called
avv

Conversion

by

contraposition (avnarpo^r]
we one

because avri6e"rei),

make

use

of the

laws

against the other, or its contradictory (notand thought (gentle, polite), the truth or and from gentle, not-polite), argue of the one truth of the other. to the falsity or falsity This of con is the only means sort of Conversion be converted, verting O. By it E may sometimes but only when there is a double negative,e.g.
No
.*.

opposition by putting the object of contraposing

of

circles

are

not round
are

figures.
round
are

No

that figures
we

not

circles.

What

are

to

say about find

no

this Conversion
of

by

con or

? traposition St. Thomas. The

answer

We How
seems

trace

it in Aristotle

is this if it is perfectly ? legitimate

to at

be that

is not becomes
while

Conversion the

all.

the

and predicate, unaltered. copula remains

speaking it strictly the subject In Conversion the predicatethe subject,

In

this sort

of

Conversion the
new

it is true

that
the

the
new

old

subject becomes
of its
9

predicate,but

becoming the same contradictory,while negative separating the

affirmative and

subject,instead the old predicate becomes as before was the copula which
terms

asunder,

now

become!

if previously or together, it appears as now affirmative, negative. be called Conversion therefore It can only by

unites them

of terms of that laxer use by reason ancient from which days, distinguishes modern of the What we really have is not the converse convertend, but of a propositionwhich is equipollen*

courtesy

and

VALUE

OF

CONVERSION

PER

CONTRA.

303

with

the

convertend. in O but have that various the

We

restate

the form. E.

original
It

pro

position longer
so,
we

an

altogether
I,
no

different
A

is
done

no

longer
the

but

Having
but

now

not

original
for Conversion mnemonic
I be

proposition
it.

the

equivalent
These in

we

substituted kinds Latin

and

of

are

summed which

up

following
that
E

lines,1
converted

inform
E and A

us

may

simply.
and beside

per

accidens,
is
no

and

O
of

per

contra,

these

there

other

kind

conversion.

FEcI

simpliciter
per
contra,

convertitur,
sit

RvA

per
Ma.

acci

AstO

fit

conversio

306

ON

REASONING.

and

gradually, advancing with toil through the of reasoning or argument. medium It is with reasoning that the Third Part of Logic
How
are we

is concerned.
are

to

define
we

it,and
reason

what

the various

forms
is the

under

which

operation of the human mind. As the first, Simple Apprehension, consists in apprehending ideas, and the second, Judgment, in comparing
agreement
ideas
or

Reasoning

third

together and pronouncing so the third consists difference,

on

their
com

in

paring togetherjudgments and deducing from them further judgment, wherever the laws of thought a permit of our so doing. But Reasoning may be looked at in another light.
In order

that

we

may
must
as

reason,

the
one

two

judgments
common

compared
both

together
either in the

have

idea

to

of them

ing consists
two

ideas medium and

contained

subjector predicate. Reason comparing together of the other in these two judgments through
which
is
common

the

of that

to

both

of

pronouncing on the agreement or difference of these two ideas according to their respective relations to it. For instance, in the judgments, All smoky cities are comparatively freefrom zymotic diseases; Cincinnati is a smoky city together the two ; I compare ideas of Cincinnati and freedom from zymotic diseases of of smoky city, and by reason through the medium
them,
the agreement of both
to

of these with
at the

the

same

common

idea,
is

I anrable

arrive

conclusion, Cincinnati

comparatively freefrom zymotic diseases. is an Reasoning then in its widest sense mind from by which one judgment is inferred

act
some

of the
oihr.i

FOUNDATIONS

OF

REASONING.

307

judgment
ment
or

or

known. judgments previously that judgments precede are

is inferred the

The called

judg
the

antecedent,that which
if
we

consequent. Or

Reasoning under the other aspect, we define it as an act of the mind by which two ideas may are compared with a third, and their agreement or thus ascertained. difference
at

look

from antecedent an judgment thus inferred judgment or judgments is called mediate, as opposed to immediate known at once are judgments, which without and needing the support of any previous fall into Immediate two judgments knowledge.
A classes.
1.
or a us

First

universals, axioms, analytical principles,

truth of which is known
can

the prioripropositions, from

same

to

the

very

nature

of

things,e.g., Nothing
The whole

be at the than
2.

time

true

and

false ;
a cause.

is greater

have its part ; A II effects

Truths

of

and fact, particulars,

individual

or

empirical propositions; truths of experience,which no only be depend on general principle and can arrived at or experiment, e.g., Saul by observation the first was king of Israel ; This ostrich is a long-lived animal lay up honey city ; Bees ; Chicago is a flourishing
for their
These
us

winter
two
our

food.
kinds of immediate
when

judgments
we

furnish
:

with

stock-in-trade
at

reason

every

conclusion

which

we

arrive, must
been

be

capable of
in

being

verified

by

its

having

inferred logically of
fact
case,
or

its ultimate

origin from
as

truths

from
a

first
com

principles, or,
bination of the

is

generallythe

from

two.

308

ON

REASONING.

But
first

in most

cases

we

do

not
we

go

back

to

ultimate
some

principles. Sometimes mediate principles agreed upon

and

begin from by mankind

as

true,

by combining these with other mediate principles similarly agreed upon, or with individual facts,arrive For conclusion. at our instance, I have deduced
from ultimate
or

first I have

principlesby
received from

argument,
of my

previous chain of the oral teaching

mediate

instructors

in my

youth, the
of
God

principle,

All violation

of

the law

also made
a

my

own

misery. I have the farther principlethat, Theft is

entails

of the law of God ; and I thus arrive at the conclusion, that Thieving never prospers. Or I may of some to the case principle go farther and apply my
one

violation

(A. B.) who

I thus
never

has the

acquired
further

money

dishonestly,
that
A. B.

and will

deduce prosper.

conclusion

Sometimes,
and

again, we
infer
some

begin
some

with

individual

facts,

from

them

mediate

universal, and

then

combine
and

this with
so

universal,
extended, observed

arrive
For

principle.
the
to

mediate or partial at some more widely have instance, I may other

wonderful

belonging
from those

myself

and

sagacity displayed by dogs several of my friends,and

I arrive
at

observations

the

conclusion

stories 01 animals. I hear or read Dogs are sagacious ot the sagacitydisplayed by horses, of their fertility for gaining their their ingenious devices resource, I sum experience in another ends, and my up

proposition:
tell
me

Horses

are

animals. sagacious
of
cats.

My
common

friends
on

similar I find

anecdotes the
same

From

books

animals

cleverness

in

DEDUCTIVE

AND

INDUCTIVE

REASONING.

309

monkeys,
upon
are

in trained

the the

fact that
animals
and

I further reflect elephants,"c. dogs, cats, horses, monkeys, "c.,

companions,
arrive
at
a

mostly putting
observation

chosen this and

by

man

for

his I

that

together
to to
me me

from

my

of

things
not

familiar

general principlewhich
viz., that
in

was

familiar

before,

animals

companionship of man to put in a logical form Dogs, horses, cats, "c., are the horses,cats, "c., are
therefore,The
animals
These the
two
are

the sagacity and generallygo together. Or,

my process

of

argument,

chosen

sagaciousanimals; Dogs, chosen companions of man; companions of man amongst the for their sagacity.
furnish
us

remarkable
two

instances of

with

examples

of

kinds

reasoning
viz.

which
:

exhaust

every

possible kind
1. a

of argument, from

Reasoning

the Universal from

to the

Particular,

priori reasoning, reasoning (6 airb T"V apx"v ^,6705).

2.

first

principles

Reasoning from Particulars to the Universal, a reasoning, reasoning to first principles posteriori (o eVt r^9 o,px^ ^0705). is of reasoning the former kinds Of these two
termed deductive
or

the syllogistic ;
must
must

latter inductive in mind

to
we

or

experimental. Yet we inductive reasoning

form
to

bear be

that

all

reducible
Of this

syllogistic
shall have For

in

order when

to
we

be
come

valid.
to

speak

treat

of Induction.

enough to say that it is identified from far as it argues with the Syllogism in as a laws), general principle (the uniformity of nature's that general it in that it employs but differs fr^m
the

present

it is

3io

ON

REASONING

to principle

ascend

from

the observation
on

of

particular
universal

facts to of

mediate

principlebased
from
some

them, instead
or

descending principleto the

When

mediate facts.

individual is

it is expressed in words called Argument or argumentation. As the Syllogism is the natural argument type of all reasoning, every be stated in the form of a Syllogism. In practice can do not we syllogisms at full generally state our other of the three proposi or length,but omit one tions of which the they consist, and often condense two remaining into a singlesentence.

Reasoning

For

instance, the

schoolmaster

does

not

say

unfortunate is to be to the boy who elaborately flogged : A II boys who play truant must be flogged, You, Ishmacl Jones, are a boy who plays truant, .*. You, Ishmael Jones, must be flogged, be must but he simply says : All boys who play truant and therefore flogged, you, Ishmael Jones,must be flogged; Jones, have played truant and must be or, You, Ishmael You be floggedfor playing truant, must flogged ; or, Ishmael Jones. There certain generalcanons to all are common notice before we must reasoning which we pass on of the Syllogism. to the consideration When the antecedent i. propositions or pre
misses
cannot
seems some more

of
be
to

an

argument
from

are

true, from

false conclusion

drawn logically

them. shall if

If falsehood

follow
in the

truth, we
needs

always
we or

detect

flaw

reasoning process
no

examine

it

closely.

This

illustration

proof.

PREMISSES

UNDULY

ASSUMED.

31

2.

When

the

conclusion

is true, it does
are

not
or

at

all of

follow the

that the

premisses

true.

One

both

premisses may be false and yet the conclusion in itself, and correct also correctly drawn perfectly from the premisses, e.g.,
All Nero
/.

the Roman
was was one a

Emperors of the Roman

cruel tyrant.

were

cruel tyrants;
;

Emperors

Nero Here

one

premiss
is true.

is true, the other

and false,

yet

the

conclusion All

.'.

Emperors were But Dionysius of Syracuse was Dionysius of Syracuse was not
both

the Roman

cruel tyrants;
not
a a

crud

tyrant;

Roman the

Emperor.
conclusion the

Here

premisses
from

are

false and but

logicallydrawn
conclusion This the
ment

them,

nevertheless

is true.

principle is

an

tendency of by its iinai

which

mankind results.

important to judge
Some
a

one

on
a

account

of

of

line

of argu started is
and

hypothesis is
conclusion known
an

from

there

follows

which

confessedly in
men

accordance

with
as

facts,

accept

the

hypothesis
it is

established founded
upon

truth the the

merely
facts

because
accounts

apparently
their

and

for
of

existence.
so case

Thus

corpuscular theory
account

light seemed
facts

to successfully

for

all the

of the

that than

it

was

maintained He

by
that

no

less is

an

authority by
the

Newton. minute and In it

held

light
pass eye,

caused

certain

particles which stickingon

the

from
cause

luminous of has

body

the sensation

light.
ousted

the present day the

undulatory theory

312

ON

REASONING.

from

the

field,
which

but
are

there
more

are

still

some

of

the the

phenomena
older
It

easily explained

by

hypothesis.
is
a

neglect

of

this

principle
of of
many

that

has

led

to

the

premature
a

acceptance

scientific have of
some

hypo

theses,

great

proportion
The

which

afterwards

proved proving
"

incorrect.

arguments

geologists
because

the

extreme
"

antiquity
and

of

man,

the
instru

kitchen-middens

the the

finding
earth that
his

of
were

flint

ments

deep
Mr.

down Darwin's

in

explained
reefs
were

thereby.
formed evolution
formation
are

theory
and

coral whole

by

subsidence,
and

system
to

of the
man,

development species
of
and

in the

its

relation

of

development
assumed
as

of

instances

premisses they
never

certainly
vast

established,
of facts which
a

because
had

accounted before been

for

array
to
so

subject
But

imposing
of the

process

of
and do

generalization.
its
riot

the from

truth
the
to
as

conclusion,

logical
prove

deduction that its

assumed true, valuable

to
even

premiss,
where

premiss
character may be

be
a

they

justify
which

working
current,
end
to

hypothesis,
until
some

allowed

pass
an

facts
to

hitherto

unobserved

put

its

claim

truth.

314

THE

SYLLOGISM

AND

ITS

LAWS.

be.

We

shall at

present speak only of the Simple

Syllogism.
The three
terms

(termini, atcpa)are
minor. The forms
term

called

the

major, middle,
TO

and

pel^ov) is that
The

which minor

conclusion.
that

(d/cpov major term the predicate of the (aicpov TO eXarroz/) is

The with
the

subject of the conclusion. idea expressed in the major term is compared the idea expressed in the minor term through
the medium
of the middle
term.

which

forms

Every Syllogism
called

also contains

three

popositions,

the minor pre the major premiss, respectively The miss, and the conclusion. major premiss (propositio, or sumptio major, Trporao-^ fj pelfav) is that is compared with the major term premiss in which The the middle minor or term. premiss (propositio sumptio minor, or altera,TrpoTaa-is r) eKarroiv) is that is compared the minor term premiss in which with the

middle.

The

conclusion

(conclusio, illatio,
declares

which is the final proposition "rvfj,7repaa-iJLa) the relation

between

resulting from
middle
term.

major and the minor term 'their several comparison with the There It is introduced by the word
the the inference drawn

fore,or
from the The

Ergo, and announces premisses. two premisses

The
term.

combined
is the

are

called

the

antecedent.
Middle

conclusion

consequenttherefrom.

All

jewels are
Minor
term.

Major term. mineral substances

Middle
are are term.

(major premiss).
(minor

All diamonds
.'.

jew eh
mineral

All diamonds

substances

premiss). (conclusion)

PRINCIPLES

OF

SYLLOGISM.

315

The

reader

must

be

careful

to

notice

that

the

major premiss
comes

is not

the necessarily is very often

premiss
inverted

which in
an

first.
and

The the is

order minor

argument,

premiss placed
; the

first.

The the that

major premiss major

in which
term

invariablythe premiss
found
term

in which

is to be

minor found.

premiss
Thus

the

minor

is

to

be

in the

syllogism :
A II ostriches have A II animals
.'.

good digestion,
live long lives, good digestion

with

All

ostriches live

long lives,
since first, it contains the

the

minor
term

premiss
are

comes

minor

ostriches. the based

common

What

principleson

which

the

Syllogism is
CANONS material three

OF

THE

SYLLOGISM. of the

"

If

we

look

at

the of
two

structure
we

Syllogism
that

as

composed
on

terms,

shall

find

it is based

principles.
1.

Things

which

are

identical with
one

one

and

the

same

thingare ciple of
minor therefore
2.

identical

with

another.

This The

is the

prin
and
and

all Affirmative
term
are are

Syllogisms.
with each the with

major

identical

middle,
with
third

identical

other. and the

When

of

two

thingsone
some one

is identical and
the
same

other

these is the

different from two things are principleof

and

thing,

from each other. This different all Negative Syllogisms. Of the

terms
one is

major
other

minor

identical

with, the
therefore

different

from,
from

the

middle

term,

and

they are

different

each

other.

3i6

THE

SYLLOGISM

AND

ITS

LAWS.

But

we

may
an

regard
the

the

Syllogism under
that
descends
a

another from the

to
a

viz.,as light,
universal
narrower

argument

to

object of
it is based

particular, from thought. Looked

on a

wider
at

under
to

this

aspect

principle known
de omni
et nullo.1

ancient

logiciansas
DICTUM

the Dictum

DE

OMNI

ET

NULLO.

"

Whatever

is-

necessarily affirmed or denied of a universal subject be affirmed or denied of each of the particulars may contained under that subjuct. Dictum de omni et nullo is applicable to The deductive reasoning only. The two principlespre viously given include inductive reasoning as well,
when

expressed
moderns
as

in

form. syllogistic
have attacked

Some omni

the

Dictum

de

This is high-sounding truism. it. A principleunderlying no ground for assailing be one which is familiar all a priorireasoning must The universal to all beings who reason. more a of a truism. it partakes of the nature truth,the more familiar than that which There is no principle more the incompatibility of contradictories asserts ; yet of all possiblethought. To this is the foundation is to disparage it with call a familiar truth a truism the name an only ill-sounding title. It deserves wonderful when it is announced as some discover}' recondite which is to shed fresh light or principle, human on knowledge.
et nullo
a

GENERAL Rules of the

RULES

OF

THE

SYLLOGISM.

"

The
as

Syllogism arise
is derived from

from
Aristotle.

its very
Anal.

nature

'''his dictum

Pr., I. 4.

GENERAL

LAWS

OF

THE

SYLLOGISM.

317

laid
have based.

down stated

in
as

the

canons

or

principles which
on

we

the

foundation

which

it

is

Rule In
and

i.

There

must

be three terms, and the

two extremes

three

the minor in

Syllogism
term)
order be
term
or are

only. (the major

middle diver
were as a

compared
their mutual
or

with

the

term,

that

identity or
If there
to act

sity may
no

thus

affirmed would

denied. be

third

there middle be three but

to

nothing
means

medium
extremes
were more

might
than

by compared
term,
terms

of

which If
not

the there
one no

together.
would be

there
and

middle
common

term,
chain

several,
bind

consequently
or sever

together

asunder

the

major
Here

and

minor.

we

must must

bear be
one

in mind, middle

that
we we

when
mean

we one
:

say in

that there

term,
when

meaning,

not

in words
wear

only, as

say

A II pages The
/.

the

liveryof their
are

masters.

component parts of a book component parts of

a

pages
wear

The

book

the

liveryoj

their masters. Rule conclusion If any conclusion

in the
2.

No

term

must

have

greater extension

in the

than
term

it has in the is used

premisses.
its full extension used
in

in

in

the

without

being

its full extension be

we one

premiss, the inference would not justify,for premisses would

from breach
a

that

the

cannot

argue

part
of

of

the rule

extension
is called

to
an

the

whole.

The
or

this

illicit process

3i8

THE

SYLLOGISM

AND

ITS

LAWS.

unlawful
as

proceeding of
may be.

the

the

case

For

major or instance, if I

minor
argue
:

term,

A II sheep are But

.'.

horseyare
are

graminivorous, not sheep, graminivorous,

that
in

Horses

not

my

argument
horses
am

is

faulty in

the

conclusion

speak
exclude miss

of the whole

of the class of
it ; whereas

graminivorous, and
in the

from

major

pre

speaking of only a portion of the class. In Logical language the predicate of the negative conclusion is distributed, the predicate of the affirma therefore have an tive major is undistributed, and we
I illicit process

of the

major.

Or

again, if the rigorous

moralist

argues,

All occasions

.*.

of sin are to be avoided; Card-playingis an occasion of sin* Card-playingis to be avoided,

him

I remind word

that

he is

the card-playing in its is only true of some minor card-playing,of card-play the stakes are high, of card-playing that ing when occupies time that ought to be spent in serious of card-playing in dangerous company, "c., pursuits, rule of and that he is therefore violatingthis second of and is guiltyof an illicitprocess a good syllogism, the minor. Rule
3. The

using in the conclusion full extension, whereas

the

middle

term

must

not

be

found
is to

in the

conclusion. The medium

are

business

of the which the

middle the

term

be

the

through

major

and

middle

terms

compared

with

other.

This

office is per-

UNDISTRIBUTED

MIDDLE.

3x9

formed

in
and
:

the
it

premisses

after

which If I
were

its work
to

is

done,
as

gracefullyretires.

argue

follows

A II great orators

are

men

of genius ,"
were

Cicero
.*.

and

Demosthenes
and

great orators,
Demosthenes consisted in

The

genius of Cicero

their the middle

powers of oratory,
term

great

orators

would and
render

thrust the

itself whole

unbidden

into

the

conclusion

syllogism
Rule
used
once

futile. The full

middle
extent

4.

term

must

be

distributed

(i.e.,
least

to

the

of

its

at significance),

in the

premisses.
of this rule is the
terms
are

The and the the that

reason

fact that

the

major
of

minor medium

compared
term.

together through
Now if in each

of
we

the

middle

premisses
forms
the

spoke only
middle and term,

of the

part of the subject

two

parts might
then
are

be
no

entirely different,
common

there

would
extremes

be
com

term

with

which

the

pared,

e.g., learned
the Doctors Doctors
men are

Some

unbelievers

But
.*.

of the

Church
are

are

learned

men,

The

of the

Church the

unbelievers,
of learned from
men

where who

it is evident
are

that
is

section

unbelievers

entirely
of the
us

different

the

section This
to
as

who
rule

are

Doctors

Church.
to

should

teach the

look
term

very when

carefully
it stands
a we

the the

of universality

middle

subject

of

the

major
not

statement

generally, but

premiss, else from universally true,

j*o

THE

SYLLOGISM

AND

ITS

LAWS.

are

to draw likely with facts,e.g.,

conclusion

which

is at

variance

The But
.'.

Rulers

of the Jews
was an a was

were

enemies

of Jesus Christ,

Nicodemus

Rider

of the Jews,
affect the
terms

Nicodemus These

enemy rules

of Jesus Christ.
of

first

four

the

Syllogism, the next four affect the premisses or the it. propositionsthat compose Rule 5. From two negativepremissesno conclusion
can

be drawn.

Unless neither term,

But

one

of

the

premisses
agrees
are

be

affirmative,
the

of

the

extremes

with
at

middle with it.

but

they
from

both

of them
two

variance both

from

the fact that

a

things are

of them
as

different
their from

third, we
to

gain no
one

information For

to

mutual the
No But

relations
.

another.

instance,

premisses,
shoemakers
some are

astronomers,
are

astronomers

not

classical

scholars,
between
As

we

learn

nothing
and

as

to

the

connection

shoemakers
the above

classical

scholarship.

far

as

scholars
some

concerned, premisses are be shoemakers, or none may

be and
seem

all
may

classical
be ;
or

may

others
to

not.

Sometimes

with

this defect
No But

an justify

syllogisms inference,e.g.,

tyrants are friendsto liberty.

some

statesmen

are

not

friendsto liberty.
could draw the
con

At

first

sight it

looks

as

if we

clusion,
.*.

Some

statesmen

are

tyrants;
as

but

the fact that

all tyrants

well

as

some

states

321

THE

SYLLOGISM

AND

ITS

LAWS.

in order it must

that the
be

middle

term

should

be

distributed

the

this is the
But
as one

sion

must

predicate of the negative premiss, for in the premisses. distributed only term of the premisses is negative the conclu be negative, and the its predicate,i.e.,
will be distributed.
in
an

major
was

term,

not

distributed here
Rule

have in

therefore

major term the major premiss, and we illicit process of the major
But

the

opposition to

2, e.g.,

Some Some
.*. Some

are buffaloes fierce, are tigers are tigers

not not

buffaloes, fierce,
in the

where

the

major
and
not

term

conclusion
Rule

in

fierceis distributed the major premiss.

must

follow the weaker it must be particular if either of the i.e., premiss, premisses is particular,negative if either of the premisses is negative. be particular if either of the premisses (a) It must is particular, for the particularpremiss asserts the with term agreement or disagreement of the middle
one

8. The

conclusion

of the terms
sense,

taken taken

in

restricted
not

and
as
a

not

in

universal
Thus

in part and

whole.

in the

syllogism:
are

All Some
'.

swans

said to

theydie. sing before

waterfowlare swans, II waterfowlare said to sing before theydie, clearly violated, and
be
we

this rule is process

have

an

illicit

of the minor.
must

(b) It

negative, because

negative if either premiss is the negative premiss states the

RULES

OF

THE

SYLLOGISM.

323

disagreement
term,
ment

of
the

one

of

the

extremes

from

the the
Hence

middle

while of the

affirmative

premiss
with

states

agree

other
assert

extreme

it.

the the I

conclusion

must

the other.

disagreement
If for instance

of

two

extremes

from

each

argue,

No A All II

private
Policemen Policemen

persons
wear

wear

uniform,

uniform, private
is

.'.

are

persons,

the

violation

of

right

reason

patent*

CHAPTER
THE What
FIGURES OF THE

I!T.
SYLLOGISM. REDUCTION.

determines First
"

the

Figure Figures Principle of

"

Figures of the Syllogism --Principle of tha and Fourth Third, Origin of the Second,
the various

Figures
"

"

First

Figure type
"

of

reasoning

"

Rules

of the
"

Figures

Fourth

Figure anomalous

Rules of First
"

of Fourth

Figure
"

Principleof
of Reduction
"

Reduction" Reduction Reduction

Importance
per impossible per
contra
"

Figure

Method
contra
"

Reduction

per

Clumsiness

of

Singular Propositionsin the Syllogism. IN

discussing
it is

the

Syllogism,we
and three

explained
Laws
to
or

that

it

consists that

of three

terms

propositions,and
Rules,
its
to

governed by
of which

certain

the

observance

is necessary
is
or

validity. special by
to

Every
rules The

Syllogism, according Figure

of the
to

moreover,

subject

its Form
a

Figure.
is determined with the the the
is

of

Syllogism
term

position
extremes.

middle

respect
middle

Its normal the

two

place, as
since
but

term,

between

extremes,

it is less in extent the

minor.

than This

the
will

major term, place it as

it is
the

greater than
the

subject of
with

major premiss,
term,
which and in

in which
the

compared
of the
minor

the

major
For

predicate
with

premiss,
term.
are are are

it is

compared

the minor
men men men

instance:
words
;

All courteous All well-bred

,'.

in gentle

courteous;
in wordst gentle

All well-bred

PRIUC1PLE

OF

THE

FIRST

FIGURE.

323

where

the

middle between

term,
the

courteous, comes
in major gentle

in words

point of
and the

extension minor

well-bred. is the normal and

most

This

perfect

foim

of the

Syllogism. knowledge
and it model

It is the of of the all

gives a scientific of things. It is the type nature reasoning, the shape into which only one
the
so

which

naturally and
which carried
on

by
be the

easily falls. It is Demonstration properly

:

only figure
called carries
can

the

only

one

which

out

Aristotelian

method

of argument

from

priori
have

principles.
When what the middle the ideal
;

occupies
First form

this

we position,

is called is the

Figure.
of

Hence

the

First

Figure
of

all argument
leads

it is the
up
to
a

reasoning, the pattern scientific figure,the only

conclusion
at

figure that
time I. The

the

same

universal

and

affirmative.

First

Figure, then,
middle the

is that
term

form is the

of the

the syllogism in which of the major premiss and It may be

subject

predicate of
:

the minor.

depicted

as

follows

Ma

-"
Ma

when

Ma=major
II.
But

term, middle

M
term

middle,
mav

Mi
"

minor.

the

fail of this relation

326

THE

FIGURES

OF

THE

SYLLOGISM.

in may

point of

extension

to the

major

and

minor,
if
one

and

yet
term

For trulyremain the middle term. thus excluding the premisses is negative,

of the

middle

from should
tremes. must

one

of the extremes,
occupy

it is not

necessary

that it the
ex

this middle

position between premiss the middle place as less extended

than the minor which
and
we

In the affirmative occupy

term

its proper
more

than
term
;

the
but

major
in

or

extended

the

negative premiss
of the middle that
necessary

asserts
one

the
the

mutual

exclusion

of
take

extremes,
account

it is not the

should

into

relation, in point of extension, of the

and

middle

term

the extreme

from

which

it is thus

excluded.
No All
.'.

For
men

instance,
are

gouty

centenarians, centenarians,
were

the Patriarchs

None

the Flood were before the Flood ofthe Patriarchs before

term

gouty

men,

where

the middle is
more

in the (centenarians) than the minor

affirma
term

tive minor

extended

but (patriarchs) than

it is not
term

necessarilyless
in the

extended

major major premiss.

Hence

the

(gouty men)
necessary

negative
to

it is not of the

always

to

look

the

regard to both different have other figures and we the extremes, may the middle from the first and in which premiss may than that of the subject of a position other occupy In the major premiss and predicate of the minor. the instance just given it is the predicate of both premisses, and the syllogism is said to be in the
extension middle
term

with

Second

Figure.

OKIGM

OF

THE

SECOND,

THIRL.

"- FOURTH

FIGURE.

327

The

Second

Figure

may

be

thus

represented :

^1 "

T7

0
III. Beside the
case

of

one

of
in

the which

premisses
without between

being negative, there

is another
need
not

anomaly
the

the middle If in

term
one

be

placed
middle

extremes.

of

the

premisses we
of the of

speak
term,
middle

only
and
term

of in

part of the extension

the in other its of the

whole

it, the

partial significationbe less than either of the extremes without violatingsyllogistic that in principles. This always leaves the possibility it is greater its universal meaning and as a whole
may

than

the

minor
men

term

for

instance,

All Some
.*.

are
men are

prone

to err,

Doctors

of Divinity,
to errt

Some the

Doctors

of Divinity are prone

term

where

middle than

men,

though
term

greater

in

its

full extension is not word

the minor when

Doctors

ofDivinity,

so necessarily

restricted
can

some,

and the

therefore minor

take

by the limiting its place as the

term,
taken

subject of
Even
as as a we

premiss.
of fact the
we

if in

point
in the form

the minor
are

middle in

whole, is less than

cannot, from the
case

extension, yet
does
not

considering, know

this

of

the

syllogism, it

fcjfc
violate

THE

FIGURES

OF

tHE

SYLLOGISM,

have we principle its position, e.g., if instead of

A II Some
.*.
men men are

the

laid down the above

we

respecting had,

prone
are

to

err

animals who have

of a
a

savage

nature
are

Some

animals

savage
are

nature

prone

to

err.

It is clear than

that
men,

there

more

savage
not

animals

there

are

yet this does

minor

appear

from is
no

the form

of the

syllogism,and beyond
middle
under this.
term

therefore

there

real anomaly
But
we

in the go

premiss.
Even

may

though

in the

minor

premiss
we

the

is in the

entiretyof
the
exten

its extension conclusion sion

put

the
a

minor, yet if in the

speak only of
term, the
our

portion of
may

of the minor
because

syllogism
of
be

still pass
term

current,

portion
may taken

the

minor

spoken
than minor

of in the middle

conclusion
term

less in extension

the

in
:

its

entiretyin

the

premiss, as

for instance
men men wear

All civilized
All
.*. Some

clothes,

civilized who

cook

food, their food wear clothes,

conclusion of
as

cook their

where

we

speak
who

in the their

only
far
as

portion
the form class

of those of the

cook

food,

and

syllogism is concerned,
men

the

general
the class
in

of

civilized
cookers

may

come

between

of food-

and

the
In

class of clothes-wearers
these instances

point of
term

extension. the
said

the

middle
the

is

subject of
to

both

premisses, and

be
:

in the Third

Figure, of which

syllogismis our diagram

will be

330

THE

FIGURE*

OF

THE

SYLLOGISM.

Ma

""

theory to practice. We have that though the middle seen term, normally and in the scientific form of the Syllogism, is a class which in its entirety be greater in extension than should less than taken in its entirety, the minor and term in its entirety, taken the major term yet that when
We
now

turn

from

we

exclude

one

class

from

another

we

need

take

no

notice The
and

of their mutual is the

case

relation in when
we

same

point of extension. speak of a portion

term

not

of the whole
In

of the minor

in the
our
can

con

clusion.

other

words, provided that

or

conclu

sion is either from in the

comes

negative

the first

method I.

middle term figureand which various possiblepositionsthat any term twice in the premisses can By this occupy. shall thus arrive at four figures. we Middle the subject oi FIGURE. FIRST term
"

we particular, place our may

depart

the

major premiss, predicate of

II. SECOND FIGURE.
"

the minor.
term

Middle

the

predicate subject predi"

of both
III.

premisses.
THIRD FIGURE.
"

Middle

term

the

of both IV.
cate

premisses.
FOURTH FIGURE.
"

Middle

term

the

of the

major premiss, subject of

the minor.

PRINCIPLE

OF

THE

VARIOUS

FIGURES.

331

We

have

already spoken
model of all

of the

First This

Figure
is
so

as

the type and the valid

ments
case

reasoning.
in the reducible It is
moreover

much

that
so

arguments
far
as

other
to

figures are
sound argu

only
which from

they are figure. employ

there is

in the

first

the

shape
if
we

into

every

argument

and naturallyfalls,

depart
it is their The found that
more

it and

other
a

figures in

its

place,
in

because

certain

convenience
are a

adoption
author
among

than

because work
on

they
the of St.
most

necessity.
Aristotle
remarks

of the the

Logic

of

Opuscula
is the
term

Thomas,1

the

First the

Figure
middle
nature

perfect because
middle,
extremes,
the

in
and

it alone

is

really the

partakes
as

of the

of the two of the

inasmuch

it is the the

subject
If
terms

major term,
continues

predicate
author,

of

minor.

however,

this

the middle
the middle

is the

predicate
it of

of both from

premisses,
its proper
a

term,

though

departs
both if it the

as predicate place, holds more dignifiedposition than

premisses
the of

were

subject
both,
4,

of
1

both
De

if

however
Anstotelis in
una

it

is

subject
de

Totius
"

Logica

Summa,

Tractat.

Syllogismo, c.
tune

p. 128.

Si enim

medium
esse

propositione
et

subjicitur etin
extremi,

altera

dicitur jpraedicatur,
vere

est
et

medium,

prima figura ; quia sapit naturam

merito, quia

medium scilicet

utriusque

subject!
Si
vero

secunda
naturam

est. praedicati: prsedicatur enim et subjicitur, ut dictum dicitur medium in utraque esse propositione praedicatur, medium sit vere non sapiens figura : quia licet medium

tamen quia dignius est praesubjectioniset praedicationis, locum secundum Si tenet. dicari quam subjici,ideo hac figura in medium propositione subjicitur, dicitur tertia vero utraque

figura

et et

ultima,

quia

in

ea

medium
est

non

stat

in

medio

sicut

in

prima

possunt

quod subjicitursemper, quia tres termini esse,

indignius. Plures
duabus

figurae non

in

propositionibusnon

possunt pluries variari."

THE

FIGURES

OF

THE

SYLLOGISM.

it neither fied

holds of

its proper

predicate,but therefore this figure is the third and last. The Fourth Figure this author does not recognize at all. We shall presently of the omission. the reason see It is enough to say here that the poor middle term is in it thrust into an utterlyfalse position,inas much it is subject in the premiss where as properly speaking it ought to be predicate, and predicate where it ought to be subject.
RULES
OF THE

place

position nor the digni is subject in each, and

FIRST is to

FIGURE.

"

The

very law

nature to
a

of the

First

Figure
the

apply

general
:

case. particular 1.

From

this it follows which

That
be

major premiss
minor

states

the law

should
2.

universal. the
be
two

That

premiss
exclude of

which

applies

the

law

should These

affirmative. conditions from the first figure kinds

be A
or

number

of

combinations The
I. be
a

various
must must

of

propositions.
the
tive cular reduces sible

major premiss
The

E,

minor

or

conclusion

be

nega

if there if
one

of the various

parti negative premiss, and premisses be particular. This

moods
to
or

the

combinations

pos

under A A

Fig.
I, EAO,
forms
up

7, viz., AAA, the

EAE,
are

All, only

EIO,
weakened
are

of which first two.

last two
These

of the

four moods

summed

in the mnemonic

line,

BArbArA,
1

CElArEnt, DArii, FErioqut, prioris.1

this line indicate The small the nature letters in of the

The

capitalsin
various

propositions
i

the

moods.

Figure

have

no

"pecialmeaning.

RULES

OF

THE

SECOND

FIGURE.

333

If
any

we

violate other

either

of the

above

rules, or figure,our

attempt
argu

combination

in the

first

ment

of
us

and will sin against one other or faulty, the general rules given above. For instance, let with a particular major premiss, try a syllogism

will be

Some All
/.

All

Africanshave woolly heads; Egyptians are Africans; Egyptians have woolly heads.
term

Here

the

middle

is not

distributed

in

either

premiss.
Or
suppose
we

attempt
are

A II great talkers

negative minor, wearisome to their friends ;

a

No
.'.

silent silent

men

are

great talkers
wearisome

No

men

are

to their

friends.

Here
not

wearisome in the

is distributed

in the

conclusion, but

major). major premiss (illicit

will take
sweetmeats
are beverages are beverages

Lastly we
Some No
.'.

both
are

faults

together.
;

unwholesome
;

sweetmeats

No

unwholesome. in the

Here

unwholesome
not

is distributed

conclusion,

but

in the

major). major premiss (illicit

THE

RULES

OF
we

SECOND
seen,

FIGURE.

"

The

Second

Figure,as
the middle

have
term

arises from

the fact that when of

a

is the

predicate

negative pro

its exten into account take need not we position, The the major and minor. with sion as compared Second Figure always has one of its premisses nega law of universal exclu a tive, either deriving from class (major subordinate sion, the exclusion of some negative),or, arguing from a positivelaw universallv

J34

THE

FIGURES

OF

THE

SYLLOGISM.

applied to
class

some

class, the exclusion

reason

of

subordinate

largerclass by from the jurisdiction of the follow the negative). Hence

1.

from

the

of its exclusion
law

universal

(minor
2.

Rules

of

Figure

The

2.

One

3. The This limits

negative. conclusion be negative. must the possible moods of this figure to

AEE, EIO, AOO,
which
are

major must premiss must

be

universal.
be

four, viz., EAE,

commemorated

in the mnemonic

line,
BAroko,
and you secundae.

CESArE,
Break

CAmEstrES,
of the
some

FEstmo,
above rules

either

will find

yourselfwith
Some

defect,e.g., syllogistic
virtuous
are are

pagans

are

; ;

No
.'.

housebreakers
housebreakers

virtuous
not

Some

major). pagans (illicit

A II sparrows are

Some
.*.

Some

; impudent are schoolboys impudent; are schoolboys sparrows (undistributed middle)

RULES

OF

THE
on

THIRD

FIGURE.

"

The

Third
in the

Figure
term,
be

is based
we

the consideration

that when

conclusion

speak only
not

of

portion
middle whole of the

of the minor
term

it does

follow

that

the the

should minor
term

greater in extension
as

than

of the minor

term,

required if the occupies the subject of Figure therefore the rules

is
1.

whole

the
will

conclusion.

In

this

be,
be
must

The The

conclusion minor
we

must

particular.
be

2.

premiss
shall find

affirmative,
involved in

else
an

ourselves

illicitmajor.

RULES

OF

THE

FOURTH

FIGURE.

335

This

reduces

our

possible moods
EIO,
or

to

six:

A A

I,

I A I, All,
Tertia

EAO,

OAO,

rhythmically.

DArApti, DisAmis,
FErison,
any

DAtisi, FElApton,

BokArdo,

habet.
to

Here,
other

too,

attempt
will be

construct to

than

these

fatal

syllogisms right reason

ing,e.g.,
All No
.'.

oystersare oystersare
in

nutritious;
in
season

in

July

Nothing

season

in

July

is nutritious

(illicit major).

or, No

All
.*.

No

are pleasant mosquitoes companions; mosquitoesbuzz ; companions (illicit buzzing thingsare pleasant

minor).
RULES
to
OF THE

FOURTH

FIGURE.

"

We

now

come

that

mauvais

reasoning, sujet of syllogistic

in

the

Fourth and
to

Figure,
the very

which, contrary
of

to

all symmetry

term things,the middle position of being occupies the doubly anomalous where it ought to the predicate of the major term it ought be subject, and subject of the minor where
nature

to

be

predicate.
on

Is it based
be

any

found
can

for it ? We be said

? Can principle any have already mentioned is

excuse

that

all

that

in its favour the class

that, whereas
smallest

in the

legitimate syllogism
is in the included between conclusion in the
one

in extension

included which this

in the

largest,because

them,

in
a

occupies the middle term bastard offspring of syllo

largest class
is included

gisticreasoning

bit of the

336

THE

FIGURES

OF

THE

SYLLOGISM

in the smallest

because

it is included

in

that

bit of

the middle
It has

which its

is included

in the smallest.
are

origin in
First

what

called

the

indirect
the

moods

of the is

conclusion the

Figure, viz.,those in which inverted, the subject being taken

and

from the

major premiss minor, e.g.,

Some
.

the

predicate

from

fishes fly No birds are fishes creatures that fly are .'. Some
. .

.1
.

not

birds
.

There

are

five of these

moods,
in the

viz:

A A

I, EAE,

All,

AEO,

IEO,

given

line,
FnsEsmo
as

BArAlip, CElAntES, They

ments.
are

DAbitis,
but

FApEsmo,

anomalous Fourth
some

valid perfectly

argu

The
under

them them.

Figure is an and principle,

? No. moods

attempt
to

to
a

arrange

make

home

for

Is this necessary anomalous

be and
to

It is much
return to

better their

that these

should
as

and allegiance They are one of Figure I ;

retained

all reducible

provide

them

of their

own

is to

encourage

curiosities. syllogistic to the ordinary moods with a dwelling-place the grossest syllogistic

irregularity. Figure of any practicaluse ? Not fall naturally Does a bit. syllogistic reasoning ever What is it then ? into it ? Never. Nothing else
Is the

Fourth

than
mere

the

First

Figure
to

turned

upside

down.
arrange

It is

mechanical

invention the

of those

who

the
the any

figures according
middle
term to

in the

possible position of premisses, without having

the

regard

its due

relation to

major

and

minor

in

338

THE

FJGURES

OF

THE

SYLLOGISM.

In

Figure

4 this All

syllogismwill
are

be

as

follows

ostriches
can

birds;

A II birds

fly;
can

.'.Some
Or

thingsthat

fly are

ostriches.

again :
No

are unmercifulto the poor ; good men Some are good men ; police magistrates not unmercifulto .'. Some are magistrates police

the

poor.
thus
:

When
Some No '.Some

this is stated

in

Figure

4 it will

run

are good men ; police magistrates are unmercifulto the poor ; good men

who

are

not

unmercifulto

the

poor

are

police

magistrates.
But
we

must

turn

to

the

Rules

of

this

poor

mis-shapen figure; they are three in If the major is affirmative, the 1.

universal,else the middle
in either
2.

number. minor
must

be

term

will not

be distributed

premiss.
is

If the minor

the conclusion affirmative,

must

be

else particular,
3. If
one

illicitminor.
is

be negative,the major must the negative conclusion which is universal, because the result of a negative premiss will distribute the major term. the legitimate Hence of the Fourth moods Figure

premiss

will

be

AAI,

AEE,

IAI,

EAO,

EIO,

com-

memorated

in the line"

BrAmAntip

CAmEnEs,
FrEsison.

DimAris,

FESApo

We

need

not

linger over

instances

of this

figure,

PRINCIPLE

OF

REDUCTION.

339

worthy of our recognized by Aristotle

cians. who and It is the lived
was

It

is not

consideration.
or

It

is not

by
of

the

scholastic
the

logi

invention
the end

of Galen, the

physician,
century,
Paradoxo-

towards
termed

second

by

his

contemporaries
Hence

logos or
called

the

wonder-talker.

it is sometimes

the

Galenian

figure.
If the First

REDUCTION. and
or

"

Figure
it will the

is

the

type

pattern
at

of

all

reasoning,
should
et

be

necessary,

least

desirable, that

all be

various
to

forms it. of

of the

lawful Dictum

argument
de omni

reducible is the all

to

If
the

nullo the
be
test

basis

be Syllogism, it must should gisms, that we under that figure to is

of

good
the

Syllo
them Dictum

able

arrange

which
more,

alone it is

applicable.
of the that

Nay
First

only
have
a

to

those

moods

Figure

which is

universal

conclusion

this dictum Aristotle1

and strictly

properly
until he

applicable, and
has

is not

satisfied
we

reduced,

in

the

way

that

shall

presently

describe, all other

which
under

Modern process
1

form to a syllogisms whatever enables them to come, or indirectly, directly this fundamental principleof all reasoning. philosophers, impatient of the elaborate

required
St.

for this

universal (Ed.
"

reduction, would
Rom. Totius De xlviii.), quod licet isti duo

Cf.

Thos.,

Opusc.,
c.

XLIV.
4.

Logics
ultimi

Aristotelis

Summa,

Sciendum

syllogism! probari possint per dici de tamen est ; nullo, ut dictum Philosophus i
ad
et eorum

omni

et

per

dici de
eos

Prior.,

reducit

duos dici
et

modos de hoc nullo

primes
faciemus in

in

quibus

verius

salvatur

dici

de

omni

propter

universalitatem fine omnium."

minoris

propositionis

MO

REDUCTION.

basis, and each figureto stand on its own mood to b"2 proveable by the two principleswhich fc,ave given above. we
At

have

each

the
any
or

same

time

they
the

do
may

not

deny
stated

the
in

fact
some

that way

valid other

argument
under

be

First

proved indirectly,if not Celarent; to the exclusion reasoning. We as generallylaid

afterwards
compare

Figure, and directly, by Barbara

of all other laws forms

each
or

of

will first
down

give the
modern and

of Reduction will

by

and logicians, modern

the ancient
see

methods
or

of Reduction, and
to

whether
and

it is desirable
St. Thomas. words We

not

improve
We

upon

Aristotle certain the

have
moods

given
of here

mnemonic

for the will

various combine which

different
a

figures

them it is well

into

convenient
memory,

little stave

to commit

to

FErioque, prioris. CESArE, CAmEstrEs, BAroko, secundae. FEstmo, Tertia, DArApti, DisAmis, DAtisi, FElApton, BokArdo, FErison, habet ; Quarta insuper addit, DimAris, FESApo, FrEsison. BrAmAntip, CAmEnEs,
BArbArA,
Here forms it will
be
one

CElArEnt,

DArii.

noticed

that

all the

various

begin with corresponding to

This the
indicates moods

of the four letters, B, C, D, F, various in

moods

the

of
i,

Figure
to

i.

the of the

mood

Figure

which
;

other

Paroko, for instance,to

We
also
out

figures are Barbara, Cesare

letters

reducible
to Celarent.

observe
the

certain

point

changes
letter
m

necessary

reduction.

The

directs

recurring which for effectingthis that the premisses

METHOD

OF

REDUCTION.

341

should

be

transposed,

while is to

s,

p, k that
be

the

proposi
and

tion which
cate
s

they
kind

follow

be
to

converted,

indi

the

of conversion

is found the

the followinga letter, letter

must

employed. When proposition indicated

converted the

by

preceding
same

be

p in the
indicated verted

way

indicates

that
letter

simply ; proposition
be
2 con

by

the

preceding
Thus

should in

per accidens.
to

Camestres

Figure begin
to

must

be converted

Celarent, because
have and
to

both be

with

C:

the
and

premisses, moreover, the minor premiss

(s). For

transposed (m),
be

conclusion

simply

converted All No
.*.

instance,
.

breathe by gills fishes breathe by gills porpoises

.

cAm
ES

No

are fishes porpoises

....

trES

becomes No

when
creatures

reduced
are porpoises breathingby gills
.

CE

breathe A II fishes
.*.

by gills

IA
. . . .

No

are porpoises fishes

rEnt
....

one

Again Darapti in Figure of the four magic letters

p indicating
that the

3, which needs

only

contains

only one premiss

change,
must

the

minor

be

converted All All

/.

per accidens,e.g.,
red when

lobsters turn lobsters

are

boiled

.DA

Some

creatures

good for food good forfood turn

rAp
ti

red when

boiled,

becomes All Some

.'.

lobsters turn
creatures

red

when

boiled

"

.DA
.

Some

creatures

good forfood are good for food turn

lobsters red when

n I

boiled

341

REDUCTION.

But

what

is the

meaning
indicated

of k ? that

According
the

to

the

old

logicians it

reduction

be of an kind indirect called per employed must moderns it indicates that impossibile ; according to the proposition indicated by the preceding letter is to be converted by contraposition or per contra. l have that conversion We already remarked per is not reallyconversion but the con contra at all, of some version proposition equivalent to the pro it is this reason For position to be converted. ignored by Aristotle and scholastic logicians. Hence in Reduction of any such use no they make pro scientific, though strictly cess, but adopt the more is termed which perhaps rather cumbersome process Reductio per impossibile.The reader is requested to recall the system of proof occasionally adopted in of assuming the contradictory of the conclu Euclid is to be proved, and sion which showing how this therefore the original contradictory is false, and The of the logician is conclusion true. process almost exactly similar ; it is as follows : of our If we that the conclusion syllo suppose be true. We gism is false, its contradictory must will therefore this contradictory for a new assume with of the original one premiss to be combined thence conclusion we premisses, and see what new deduce. For instance, I take a syllogismin Baroko (Fig, *).

I// A II

/.

angelsare perfectly happy intellectual beingsare not happy Some Some intellectual beingsare not angels
.

BA

rok
O

P. 302.

REDUCTION

PER

CONTRA.

343

If the

conclusion

is false, its

contradictory will

be true, viz.,
All We

intellectual beingsare
assume

angels.
our new

will therefore
our

this

as

premiss.
this
be
as

Retaining
as our new
:

old minor

major
:

premiss, we
argument

will take then

our

will

follows

A II

angelsare

perfectly happy

BA
. .

All-intellectual
.'.All intellectual But

beingsare beingsare

angels

rbA
. .

perfectly happy
our

rA

this

new

conclusion
and
must

contradicts therefore
must

former Hence

minor
one

premiss,
our new new

be be

false.

of
our

premisses

false ; it cannot the

same

be
as

major premiss, which

Hence
our new

remains

before. All

minor

premiss, viz., angels,

intellectual therefore

beingsare
its

is

false,and
Some

contradictory,
not

intellectual

beings are
is true.

angels,

or

our

original conclusion,
far the ancient

So
to

method. which

We

will moderns

now

turn

the

light and
the

airy method
of

substi Thomas.

tute

for

system

Aristotle
and

and Bokardo

St.

Instead

of reducing Baroko
make
use

per imposcontra to
or

sibile, they

of

conversion

per

by
is all

these moods reduce contraposition,and Darii and per respectively. If conversion

no

Ferio

contra

conversion of

at

all, Reduction
the

per
cited.

contra

is of

methods

Reduction of Baroko

clumsiest.

We

will take

the instance

already

REDUCTION

All Some
.'.

angelsare

happy beingsare beingsare

is to

BA

intellectual intellectual

not not

Some

happy angels
the
and

rok
o

The

modern

plan
the

attach

negative
in the
con

to

the

predicate in
All Some
.'. Some

minor

premiss

clusion.

angelsare

happy

...

.A

intellectual intellectual

beingsare beingsare
us

not-happy not-angels
a

i
.

This, however,
which have
we

involves

in
we

fresh
go
a

difficulty,
We
term must

must
one

remedy
of
our

before
terms

further.
definite

altered its

from

(happy) to
therefore

contradictory (not-happy). We
to

manage

foist

similar
purpose
we

term must

into

the

major premiss, and for this duce a double negative, and angels are major,
will
now

intro

for

our

old
a new new

happy, we angelsare
be,

must not

substitute

No

happy.

Our

major, All negative syllogism

No Some
/.

angelsare

not-happy

E I O

intellectual intellectual
to

Some

beingsare not-happy beingsare not angels

it to

But
vert

in order the

reduce

Figure

we

must

coh

major premiss, not-happybeingsare angels Some intellectual beingsare not-happy Some intellectual beingsare not angels
.

No

FF ri O

.'.

Whether
leave
our

this
readers
not

process
to

is

satisfactoryone
Suffice

we

judge.
the

it to

remark
at

ihat

it does

deserve

name

of Reduction

346

REDUCTION.

Before
one

we

close the which

subject of

Reduction

there is

questionto
laid down be
treated
a

We
to

to recur. briefly that Singular Propositions are above as Particulars, that the proposition,
t

it is necessary

This parrot is

restricted good talker is a still more form of the proposition, Some parrots are good talkers. when But with certain Singular to deal we come met are Propositions in the Syllogism,we by the fact that
in
some
cases we

may

treat

them

as

Uniour

versals

without

endangering

the

legitimacy of

inference, e.g.,

Julius Ccesar
/.

was

JuliusCcesar was One of the Roman

We shall not
we

general skilful a Roman Emperor ; general. Emperors was a skilful

a
,

have

any

in solving this difficulty

was

when difficulty seqq.,

recall what

said

on

pp.

282,

respecting the Import of propositions. We advert primarily not to the extension, but the com prehension of the subject of a proposition,to the
nature

it expresses,
The
name

not

the

class

over

which
every

it is other
with

spread.
name,

of
a

an

individual, like
nature

stands

for

certain

endowed
and

certain
It is

attributes

and

essential gifts,

accidental. of quantity individual

the

true perfectly proposition in name,

as

that which

in respect of the it stands, the than

proper

more

restricted
more

any

portion
one,
reason

of the should its

class
be

containing
as a

individuals
But

than

treated

Particular. which
to

by
be

of

expressing a
to

nature
save

cannot

communi

cated

any

one

shares

the nature

of the

it, it possesses Universal, in that it stands

him

who

SINGULAR

PROPOSITIONS.

347

for

the

whole
even

of

that that

to

which whole
is

the
more

name

is

appli*
than but
a

cable,
any

though
of
a

limited
was

portion

class.
and

Julius
in

Caesar

single individual,
more

therefore
any

point
of
a

of

extension consist
a

restricted

than
one,

portion

class he is

ing

of

more

than and he

but his
own

it is because individual

single
all to

individual, himself, that

When of the
we

has shares of and

nature

the
some

privileges of
members of
members

the
a

Universal, class also in in

one

speak

premisses,
it is

of

some

the

other,
of when As all

always

possible

that

may

be
cannot

speaking
be
"

groups
I
men

altogether
speak
of
one

different.

This

so

individual,
the
nature

and

only
in
man,

one.

exhaust has all It

found the
same

so

Julius
name

Caesar

to

himself

nature

which
a

his

suggests.
where

is there

just
is which The

the
a

in
word

Singular
such
to
as

Proposition
this,or
some

limiting
limits

expression
as,

the

subject

single individual,
The whole

last

of

the

Roman

kings
where in the

youngest

of

the

children for
a

of Darius;
nature
reason

expression
admits word of

stands
no

which

point
indi

of fact

repetition by
to

of the

vidualizing
In
a

joined
cases

it.

all these

the from

singular
two

may

be

treated

as

Universal,

and

singular
be

Propositions
whereas
can

legitimate
two

conclusion

may

deduced,
no

from be

particular Propositions

inference

made.

CHAPTER
VARIOUS
KINDS OF

IV.
SYLLOGISMS.

Hypothetical Syllogisms
junctive
4. The

"

i.

Conditional
"

Hypotheticals
"

3. of the

Dis a. Hypotheticals Conjunctive Hypotheticals

" "

Dilemma
nature

Rules the

Dilemma"
"

The

Enthymeme
"

"

True Rules

of
"

Enthymeme

The

Epichirem

Sorites

"

of Sorites

The

Polysyllogism.
we

IN

our

last

chapter
the

discussed the
rules

the various that is but

govern
a

Figures
them.
and

of the We

Syllogism,
that distortion

and

said

Fourth of
the We

Figure
then

clumsy
the

useless

First, and

not

recognized
pre

by

ancient

logicians.
of the First

explained
and

eminence

Figure,
mood
to

the

consequent

necessity of reducing
to

the

of the the

other

Figures
kinds

it.

We

now

come

various

of

Syllogisms.
All

Syllogisms

are

either

simple

or

compound,
as we

categorical or
consist is of
must

hypothetical. They Categorical

have
to
or

are,

have

already remarked,
of three these
now we

simple

when

they
It We

simple categorical propositions.

been
treat

hitherto of

speaking.
or

proceed
which the

Compound
and

complex
scholastic

Syllogisms, to logiciansgive
1

St. Thomas

the

name

of

Hypothetical.1
to
as

This

name

has

been

objected
the
case.

the

Greek

equivalent
a

of

Conditional, but

this is not

In

Greek

\nro9i"ra has

far wider

meaning.

CONDITIONAL

HYPOTHETIC

A LS.

34g

Hypothetical Syllogisms
classes.
I. Conditional

fall into

three

different

Syllogisms,
the
on

in

which

the the the

in

major
minor
conse

premiss
either

is

conditional

while proposition,
or as

affirms

condition it (or,

denies

quent
the
an

depending

it is called

Latin,

conditionatum) the
,

conclusion

being accordingly
a

assertion

of the

conditionatum, or

denial

of the

conditio, e.g.,

If the
But
.*.

wind

is in the north

(conditio) the weather

is

cold

(conditionatum),
is in the north

the wind
weather

(assertioconditionis),

The

is cold

(assertio conditionati),
cold

or,
.*.

But

the weather wind

is not in the

The

is not

(negatioconditionati), north (negatio conditionis).

is

// the
But
P*.

sick man's

disease

is in

danger of death

fever (conditio)he typhoid (conditionatum),

his disease is is in

fever (assertioconditionis", typhoid

He

danger of death (assertioconditionati),

is not in

or,

But

he

danger of

death

(negatio

condi

tionati),
/.

His

disease is not

fever(negatioconditionis). typhoid
the

But

if

we

deny
also
some

condition, it
the
cause.

does

not

follow it may

that

we

must

deny
other

consequent,
It north
may does

for
not

result because is not

from the

follow

wind
an

is not

in the

that

the weather with it

a

cold, for
low

easterly

wind If the

bring
man

very

temperature.

sick

is free from

550

VARIOUS

KINDS

OF

SYLLOGISMS.

typhoid danger
other
So

fever

it does

not

follow
be

that

he

is not
some

in

of death, for he

may

sufferingfrom
antecedent does

fatal

malady. again the truth

a

of the

not

follow from
does
not

the truth of the consequent,

cold weather

prove

the presence When thetical

denial and Thus

of

northerly wind; the typhoid fever.

or

or

danger of denth
of

the antecedent

Syllogism
the
as

is
in

will consist

the of

will take
I argue

form

Hypo Negative Proposition, its omission of the negative, Affirmative an Proposition.

consequent
a

follows,
not
,

are // sceptics right,Holy Scripture is inspiredof God; But Holy Scripture is inspired of God; not right. are .*. Sceptics

Here

the

minor

premiss, though
of the the antecedent of Conditional the
If

an

affirmative
from

pro

is a denial position, we rightlyinfer that Hence

consequent,
was

which

false.
r

the rules
we

Syllogisms are
we

(i) If

affirm

antecedent
we

may

affirm

the consequent.
may

(2)
or

deny

the antecedent.
the

deny the consequent we the affirmation (3) From

of the
antecedent
no

of the

consequent
can

denial

conclusion II.

be

drawn.

DisjunctiveHypotheticalSyllogisms are
rules
are

those

These

summed

up

in Latin

thus

Posita Sublata Sublata

antecedente, ponitur consequens, consequente,

antecedente tollitur antecedens, vel

posita consequente,

nib?'

DISJUNCTIVE in which the minor

the
or

HYPOTHETICALS.

351

the

major

is

Disjunctive Proposition, and

or

either

asserts

denies

the truth

of

one

of

alternatives, the

conclusion of the round

;

accordingly denying
alternative, as
or

asserting the
Either
moves

truth
moves

other

the

sun

the earth

the

earth

round
sun

the

sun

But
**.

the

does not
moves

move

round the
sun.

the earth

The

earth God

round

Either

created the world

or

it came

into existence

o]

itself ;
But
.'.

God world

did create did not

the world
come

The

into existence

of itself
.

DisjunctiveSyllogisms may have more in the major premiss, in which alternatives

the minor
sion will
asserts
one

than
case

two

if

of the

alternatives, the conclu

deny
I
am

the

rest.

Either

older

than

you,

or

the

same

age,

or

younger But
.'.

am

older than you

same

;
nor

am

neither the minor the

age
one one

younger. of
or

If the will
affirm

denies truth
of

them other

the

conclusion
that

of those

remain. Either I
am

older

than

you,

or

the

same

aget

ot

younger
But
.*. /
am

am

not

older than you;

or

either younger minor denies

of the

same

age.
one,

If the be affirmed

all except

that

one

will

in the

conclusion.

35"

VARIOUS

KINDS

OF

SYLLOGISMS.

Either

am

older

than

you,

or

the

same

age,

at

younger; But
.*.

am

not

older,nor
age.

am

I younger

am

of the
laws

same

legitimacyof Disjunc tive Propositions1 must be carefully attended to in order If for that these be valid. syllogisms may should have instance, a student say (as students
often said before Either
I

The

laid down

for the

now),

or failed in my examination through illness, or through ill-luck, throughthe spite of the examiner

against me
But it
was

.'.

It

through illness, for I was quitewell on the day of the examination,nor throughill-hick, for asked the questions I knew best ; I was have been through the spite must of the examiner;
not
reasoner
or

the

unfortunate of

forgets the stupidity,and

exhaustive.

further the

alter

native

ignorance

major

premiss is therefore not So again if I argue,

This
man or

lives either

in

Australia,

or

New

South

Wales,
But
.'.

Victoria;

he lives in A ustralia ;
does not live in New South

He The

Wales,

nor

in Victoria. Rule
2

conclusion

is false,inasmuch

as

of

there being no DisjunctivePropositions is neglected, the various propositions which opposition between the major premiss. compose In the
same

way
1

the

alternatives
290.

of

the

dis-

Pp. 289,

354

VARIOUS

KINDS

OF

SYLLOGISMS.

of succeeding ; ifI If I pass, I shall have the pleasure I shall be freeof the nuisance of any further fail,
examinations;
/.

/ shall have
tive.

reason

to

be

in satisfied

either alterna

The
1.

rules of the Dilemma

The

are

three
must

in number.

disjunctivepremiss possiblealternative, e.g..

Either
or

exhaust

every

I must
to my

devote

myselfto

the interests of my

soul

worldlyinterests ;
lose my

If I
.*. I
am

do the latter I shall the interests

soul,if the former

shall ruin

of my family;
man

a most therefore

miserable

where native
2.

the

of
The

major premiss omits attending to the interests

consequences which of the
are

the

third

alter

of both. shown
to

follow
must

from
be

the alternatives

premiss disjunctive

indisputable.
/
must

either

give up
;

wine

or altogether

shall

continue

to take wine

If the former, I
Hence,
whether
;

shall

lower

my

general tone, if the

a

I shall graduallybecome latter, I drink wine

or

drunkard

not, my

health will be

ruined where do
not

in

the

disjunctivepremiss
I may I may
not

the

consequences my
tone

follow. necessarily drink

admit
a

preserve

by tonics, or
3. A

It must
man

only in moderation. retort. of a telling

lucrative situation else

is offered
argues

more

where

and

thus:

VARIOUS

KINDS

OF

DILEMMAS.

353

Either

shall

have

to
or

give iip a
I shall

comfortable and
a

remunerative which To
a

post
been

miss

better

one

has
my
one

offeredme;
a

give up
better
I
am

post will be
will be very much

serious

to sacrifice,

miss

to prejudicial

my

prospects ;

Hence where

very

to be

pitied;
to

the

argument

is open

the

obvious

retort

If you

keepyour
you say

presentpost,you
is will have
to be

will

continue

in

one

which
you

comfortableand
a

remunerative
one

if

resignit, you
you
are

better all.

Hence

not

at pitied

There
1.

are

three

different

forms where

of the the in

Dilemma.
same

Simple
from

Constructive each of the

result

follows tive

alternatives

the

disjunc

major.
cancer

If this
will
an

be

allowed

to

take its course,

the

result

to and if the patient submits probably be fatal, he will probablysitccumb to its effects; operation,

But
to
/.

either he must
an

allow

it to take its course,

or

submit

operation ;
case

In
2.

either

he will die.

Complex
from and each

Constructive, where
of the alternatives

different in the

results

follow

disjunctive
the

premiss,
choice

the

supposed opponent
in the

is offered

of the
Sir

results

conclusion.
to

//

Thomas VIII.

More
to be the

were

have

acknowledged

Henry
he
to

Supreme Head of the Church, the grace ofGod; ifhe refused would have forfeited the favour of the acknowledge it, he forfeited

King;

355

VARIOUS

KINDS

OF

SYLLOGISMS.

But

he

was

either to acknowledge it compelled do

so

or

to

to refuse
'.

It

was

necessary
or

God
3.

the

for him either King'sfavour.

to

the forfeit

grace

of

Complex

Destructive, where
alternatives the denial of
one

different of the

results

follow from tive

the various from

denial

disjunc

premiss, and
a

of all the different other of the alter

results follows natives

or

presented, as
man

If this
man,

has but

"100,000

in
to

the be

bank

he is
he

rich
no

money But

if his word is invested anywhere ;

a

trusted

has

either he is not invested somewhere

rich man,
;

or

he must

have money

.*.

Either he has not

not

"

100,000

in the bank

or

his word

to be trusted.

OTHER The

VARIATIONS is
a

OF

THE

SYLLOGISM. of the

syllogism in mediaeval which some logicianshave strangely de According to parted from their master, Aristotle. is a syllogism drawn the Enthymeme Aristotle, from and brob abilities, signsof the conclusion ("rv\\oyi,crfj,
ENTHYMEME form It differs from the syllo ef el/corwv ical a-Tjfieiwv). in its matter be the gism proper ; the form may though it is not always so. same, is a premiss that is generally A probability (el/cbs) esteemed a thing is said to be probable true, and which know for the most to be so men part, though are good naturcd ; perhaps not always : as, Fat men Love begetslove; Suffering improves the character;

Swans

are

white ;

Children

resemble

their parents.

TRUE

NATURE

OF

THE

ENTRY

EM

B.

357

is a demonstrative sign (ari[jLelov) for the has

most

premiss
with

which
some

or invariably,

part, coexists

thing else quently to

certain

or some

taken

place previouslyor
event,
and is
an

subse

other
or

indication
Thus much is
a

of its existence

of its of

unsteadiness

having happened. gait is a sign of too

been
drunk
;

intoxicatingliquor having
a

remorse

sign

of

guilt; pallor a
which

sign

of indifferent

health.

sign being, Men oj who intoxicated ; Those are feel remorse have a sense health. of guilt; The pale are in indifferent then have a premiss which is either Enthymemes or a a general probability sign, e.g., premiss unsteady gait
Fat
men

The

contains

the

are was was

good natured
a

(etVo?) ;

Horace
.*.

fat man

Horace Children Charles

good

natured.

resemble is the
son

parents (etVo?); of John and Mary ;

their them. intoxicated

/.

He Men This

will resemble who

man man

roll in their rolls in his

gait are gait;

((j^jueFo;/-) ;

.'.

This The

is intoxicated.

different aspects thing can be under and both a general probability a sign of the conclu sion. Thus Obesity is a sign of good nature, and fat points probably, though a tendency to become not to a good-natured disposition. certainly, of the Enthymeme as This is the true account logicians given by Aristotle and St. Thomas, but some
same

of the middle

ages, it

word,

described

mistaking the with as syllogism

derivation
one

of the

of itspremisses

338

VARIOUS

KINDS

OF

SYLLOGISMS.

and tuppressed,

sion has

but

in

the

in outward existing not This mind (eV Ovfjio)).1

some
us

expres

meaning
authors.
some

however

basis that

in

classical
means

Quintilian2tells
times times
or

Enthymeme by
the

that which
an

is conceived

mind

some

expressed opinion with the

conclusion
or

reason

attached
conse

the

of

an

argument

either from

quences
some

from it
a

contradictories.

Hence,
an

he

says,

call

rhetorical, others
its

imperfect
distinct
or

syllogism

because

premisses
is almost

are

not

complete. The Enthymeme

Rhetorical
at

identical

with

the

from
so

in

far
we

which

thing looked Syllogism. It is the same different point of view. It is an Enthymeme of its premisses something it has for one as discover to be a by reflection (evOvprjo-is)

It is a or a sign of the conclusion. general probability Rhetorical orators as as a Syllogism inasmuch argue rule from premisses of this kind. It is this coincidence has given rise to the false between the two which idea of the Enthymeme. the modern definition and

The

rhetorician To

naturally suppresses
take

one

of

his

premisses.
orator

Aristotle's instance.3 Darius

in is to be crowned

When

the

declares
been

that

because games,
to

he

has

victorious
his

the

Olympic
if he
were :

he

would the

sadly weary major premiss

The real derivation

audience
to

insert

and

argue

thus

is from

the verbal "/0i//ueT"r0"u,

to

substantive upon,
or

Mvp-fina. being that

conceived
2

which

is laid reflection

heart

or

reflected

or

discovered V. ii.
2,

by
a.

Inst.

Or. I.

Rhet.

p. 1357,

16, Bekker.

THE

EP1CH1REM.

35$

All who
crowned

are

victorious in the
;

Olympic games

are

to be

Darius

has

been

victorious;

Thereforehe
The

is to be crowned.

Enthymeme
A

borrows

this

from peculiarity

the

Rhetorical

Syllogism.
or

be either certain a sign may sign or positive(re/c/jirjpiov), a probablesign. The sion The of sensation is all
a

proof
posses

certain

sign

of

animal from

life.
some

equalityof
within the is this

straight lines
certain

drawn

point
circle.

figure to
a case

various

points
a

of

the is
a

circumference
In

sign

that

figure
is
a

the

Enthymeme

valid

Deductive

Syllogism, e.g.,
sensation are animals ; possessing creatures possessing are sensation;
are

A II creatures Glowworms
.*.

Glowworms

animals.

The

EPICHIREM

(eV^e/p^a)
sense

or

Dialectical in modern from it

as

Syllo
books

gism, like the Enthymeme, of Logic in a very different

bears in Aristotle. Aristotle
a Syllogism, i.e.,

is used

that
a

which

it

defines such
do
as

Dialectical in be
or

syllogism
the

is
not

discussions in

where of

debaters
to

employed profess to
of it ;

possession
the

truth, but
or

be

in search
up

where
means

speaker by

writer

leads

gradually,by
considera the
con

of careful
and
at

examination
of

of various
to difficulties,

tions clusion

discussion he

which

Epichirem thus
the
matter

The name ultimately arrives. signifiedthat he who employs it takes

in
to

hand,
arrive

attacks
at
a

his

opponents
;

and

endeavours

conclusion

all which

360

VARIOUS

KINDS

OF

SYLLOGISMS.

ideas

are

included is derived. time

an

in the

verb

whence (eVt^etpea))

epichirem
But

in the
and

changed,
argument

Quindlian the meaning a Epichirem signified process

hand
to
one

of

had

of
;

already taken in a perfect proof which adds the reason of its truth, as
All rational

and

accomplished

of the

premisses

much Slaves
/.
are

as

beingsare theyare

to be treated

with

inas respect,

made

in the

image of God;
respect.
the
word

rational

beings ;
in which the

slaves Therefore

should be treated with

modern Hence
one sense we

This

is the

epichirem
as a reason

is used.

define the

Epichirem
the up

in syllogism

which

of
can

for

its truth.

It

contains premisses always be broken itself valid.

is
a

into two

valid

syllogismsif it is

heap or string the predicate of each is the of propositions in which the final conclusion being subject of the following, composed of the subject of the first proposition and the predicate of the last,as
SORITES

(from awpbs, a heap)

Jews, A II Jews appreciate the value of money, All who appreciatethe value of money bargains, A II who make good bargainsbecome rich,
are

All the children

ofJacob

make

good

A II who
A II who

become
are

rich

are

able to

help tfiepoor,
bound
to
to do so,

able to

.'.All the children There chance is

helpthe poor are ofJacob are bound

a

helpthe poor.
weakness
or

always

certain in
a

accidental
on

of weakness

Sorites,

account

of the

36a

VARIOUS

KINDS

OF

SYLLOGISMS.

of

our

second
as

syllogism and

the

conclusion

just

drawn All

its minor.

the value of money make appreciate good bargains, All the children of Jacob appreciate the value of money .'.All the children ofJacob make good bargains. Our
new so on

who

fourth

propositionwill
the minor
come

be

conclusion
until
we

of
our

our

to

last

major and our and third syllogism, in which syllogism,

but
one

the

major premiss will be the last and the minor stringof propositions, in the preceding syllogism. drawn
All who
are

rhe

of

our

the conclusion

able to

help the poor

are

bound

to

help

them,
All children .'.All children
As

ofJacob are ofJacob are

able to

bound
up

helpthe poor, to helpthe poor.

into

the

Sorites

is broken

Figure I, it must obey the No be major premiss must minor the syllogisms, must no any of the premisses from the first to the last but be negative,we shall have a one inclusive, negative therefore first syllogism,and conclusion for our the negative minors for those following it. Hence
rules of Sorites
1. 2. are
:

syllogismsof rules of that figure. particular in any of be negative. For if

first premisscan Only the last premisscan Only

every

the

be
be

particular. negative.

For
and
one

every

of the

premiss except the first is the major, premiss except the last is the minor, of syllogismsinto which it is resolved.

THE

POLYSYLLOGISM.

363

The It is

Polysyllogism
a

is

sort

of in

variation the be

of

Sorites.

series

of

syllogisms,
but
are

which

conclusions the

are

not

repeated,
of the

left

to

supplied
e.g.,

as

minor

syllogism
citizens Lincoln
Lincoln

following

next,

All

American

are

proud
A

of

their

country,

President .'.President

was

an

merican

citizen,
country.

was

proud
of
their

of

his

All

who
it.

are

proud

country

are

anxious

to

serve

.'.President

Lincoln

was

anxious

to

serve

his

country.

All

anxious

to

serve

their

country

are

willing

to

sacrifice
.'.President
his

themselves Lincoln

on

its

behalf,
to

was

willing

sacrifice

himself

for

country. willing
are

All

who

are

to

sacrifice

themselves

for

their

country
.'.President

true

patriots,
was a

Lincoln

true

patriot.

CHAPTER
ON

V.
INDUCTION.

FORMAL

Summary

"

Growth
"

of

the Ancient

Inductive Induction"
"

Spirit
"

Influent

of

the

Inductive Induction Value of

"

Spirit
Formal between

Aristotle's and

account

of
"

Induction

Proper
"

Induction

Deduction Induction-

Induction

Weakness and Modern

of Formal

Contrast

the Ancient

Spirit. different forms

some are

IN

our

last
and

chapter
the

we

discussed

of

simple
variation

complex
from

syllogisms which
normal

have

type.

Such

the

the EnthyHypothetical Syllogism, the Dilemma, Epichirem, Sorites, and the Polysyllogism. meme, We which
now

enter

on a

more

important chapter,
where
first

one

discusses

matter

principlesare
is of

at stake.

The
the notes
once

growth

of the

Inductive

Sciences
very
or
a

one

of modern

research.

The

word

Science,

appropriated to claimed ledge, is now

Inductive
or a

Deductive
as

priori know
property of

the

exclusive

of our Some knowledge. posteriori modern treatises on to Logic give far more space than Inductive to Deductive Logic, and regard it and far more Observation as experi important. take in modern ment systems a prominence that laws o/ The to the ancients. was quite unknown

GROWTH

OF

THE

INDUCTIVE

SPIRIT.

363

right
and
and
canons a

observation
and

and

trustworthy experiment
with
a

are

examined

sifted of
were

carefulness

of

detail

minuteness

St. Thomas
are

inquiry to which wholly strangers.

for their them
are

Aristotle
Laws
and

laid
are

down
to

employment,
and

the

methods
is

that very

regulate
of

represented
the
once

the

groundwork

Philosophy;

de omni et nullo principlesof the Dictum and the a priori laws of thought are relegated to an unhonoured obscurity. This from Bacon and Locke. change dates It
cause

cherished

does

not

concern

us

to

trace

its is

of
as

its
men

development.
turned

It

origin or enough to
from laws

the say
re

that ceived

their

thoughts

framed were authority to those which the result of human as experience or rather as all authority began to be regarded as built up from from below rather than down above, it coming
upon
"

was

but

natural
assume

that the
an

new

process it had

of construction
never

should

importance
instinctive

before, and

that

obedience
a

to

enjoyed prevail
critical laws. had than
every

be exchanged for ing laws should inquiry into the validity and source And when
the

very

of those

school

of reform from

in

philosophy
rather because force

decided Irom where

that

they
that

came

below

above,
of
was

true, they were force, not everywhere of

but

because should

true, it
be

right
the should

and

proper

that

they

challenged by authority

scientific be
made

their

inquirer,and subject to the

and

that
most

approved
research,

principles

of

impartial

unbiassed

566

ON

FORMAL

INDUCTION.

We ancient

have
and
to

first to
modern
to

consider

the

relation how

of far

the
we

Induction,
the claims of modern

and

ought

give in
method

of the latter to be the

dominant if there
and St.

Logic.

We

must

see

is in

our

two

great

authorities, Aristotle
modern Indue* safe

Thomas,
of We the
see

any

recognition of by
of
and

tion, and

the
must

methods then

which the

it is

guarded.
between

examine ancient
canons

distinction modern

Induction what other. laws This

and

times, and
one

and

the

portion
one,

of

regulatethe our inquiryis

one

certainly no
with
between
to

unimportant
We
a

and
to

too
our

beset
course

difficulties. the

have
narrow

steer

Scyllaof
of the
new

and

blind indifference
the

the value
a

of

too

great devotion
swallow
vortex.

discovery,and to a hungry
in

Charybdis
that
and all-

monster

seeks

to

up

all truth

its

rapid

devouring

Induction

in

its widest

sense we

is, according
mount

to

Aristotle,a
three
i.

process

by
:

which

up

from
in

to particulars

the

universal.1

This

may

be

done

different ways The

us

enables

particulars may to recognize a

us we

be

the

occasion
a

which

universal form
not

priori law.
ideas, the
able
to

They put before identity of which recognize in the

nature, embodied exercise
1

in concrete

two

might

have

been

abstract.
see

we

cannot

in concrete
an

act

of

Owing to our composite universal principles, except as cannot representations. We thought respecting triangles
fKaffrov

^ErraytDy^ rj

airb rSiv

*a(f

$TT\ -rk *aQA\ov

f*o50T

(Ar.,

Top., I. 12).

ANCIENT

INDUCTION.

367

without

having

some

sort

of

trianglepresent
cannot
some

to

our

imagination.
the

The We
or

intellect
must

work
sort

without of

phantasy.
our

have

picture
a
man

before

bodily
Euclid

mental that the

sight.
exterior
to

If I tell

ignorant of
and

angle of
the
two

every

plane triangle is exactly equal opposite angles, he

the truth of my then
cases,

interior

does

not

intuitively recog
But

nize
one

statement.

if I draw
prove

first hin. the

to

triangle and
separate
law.

another, and
he
a

it to
up
to

in the

is able

to

mount

universal make it is is

Even
to

single instance
once

is sufficient
sees

plain

him, when
of the that

he of

that

the

proof
there the

independent question,
be

kind

triangle of good

which

and

it holds

whether

triangle

obtuse

This,

equiangular, isosceles, or scalene, right-angled, or acute-angled. -angled, or in the strict is scarcely Induction however,
of than
to

meaning through
stances
2.

the

word,
the

for

the

argument
instance

is rather
or

from
in

particular
strict

in

the

universal. its
sense

Induction

is based
not
are

upon

the them.
to

particulars and
It is any
or

argues

from them, by
which
we

through
enabled

process

affirm

deny
that
we

something
of the

subject respecting the universal denied have or already affirmed

under

several

particularscontained
into
two

it.

It

is

naturally
furnish
us

divided with of the the

different and third

kinds

which various

second

of the

meanings

word.

(a) Complete

Induction,

in

which

all

the

particulars are

enumerated.

368

O.V

FORMAL

INDUCTION.

(b) Incomplete

Induction, in which
the from which

only

portion
is
drawn

of

rated, but

enume particulars are this portion a conclusion

covers

those

not

enu

merated.

Complete
Deductive the universal

Induction
As
to

is the in the
each

exact

reverse
we

of the from
par
we

process.

latter
and in

argue

subject
each
and

all of

the

ticulars
argue

contained

under

it, so

the

former

particularsto the universal subject. Aristotle defines it1 as proving the It is major term of the middle by means of the minor. thus opposed to deductive inference which proves the major of the minor of the middle. by means For instance,
Saul, David, and
achievements
But
;

from

all of the

Solomon

were

men

of remarkable
all the

Saul, David,

and

Solomon

were

Kings
men

All

of the whole of Palestine; the Kings of the whole of

remarkable
achievements.

Palestine

were

of

or,

mulberries Nettles, figs, pellitories,

a

have

flowerswith
are,

single perianth ;
nettles, figs, mulberries pellitories,
all Hie

But

All

plantsbelongingto the order Urticea ; Urticea the plantsbelonging to the order flowerswith a single perianth.
Anal. II. 23.
rov

have

Prior
iff

rv\\oy
olov
ct

rb Sid /j.bs
A T

'Eiraywyrj/xev olv i"rrl TO? Odrepov tiucpov erepov

B,
5ii
is.

Kal

TWV

fjifffov T"

Ibv

5e?"cu T"

rf

yap

roio^/icfa rat

tvay*^

370

ON

FORMAL

INDUCTION.

the whole

of Palestine,means
are

not

that the
as

the

ideas of

of

Saul, "c.,
of the whole

present
that

whenever

idea
an

of Palestine

is present
in

king object of
This is

thought, but merely

all the
not

point of

fact the class of

kings is made up the logicalmeaning

the

of these of the between

individuals.

creates

opposition
of he which

copula, and at once the syllogism and

the

induction which

Aristotle

anomaly
term.

mentions

the speaks, and respecting the middle for in the further

3,

This,

moreover,

accounts

anomaly of a universal though this anomaly may of the minor ing the terms
Is
ness

conclusion
be

Figure

avoided

by transpos

premiss.
same

Complete

Induction the

Yes, it has

of any practical useful function Deduc as

tion; it renders
enabled
to trace to
a

We are implicitknowledge explicit. realize what had not realized before, we law where
we some

universal
one. a

had

not

previously
charac in those class before them
as

suspected
teristic of who the
we are

brings out class, teaches us together

a common as as

It

universal

to

recognize

bound

members

of that

possession of
had

which peculiarity

only recognized
It is true

belonging
this sort
not

to

individuals.

that

of Induction, establish
any the be

per

enumerationem

siwplicem,does
way

connection
common
a

by

of

cause

and
common

effect between class.

It may

property and
of chance

the

matter

whole
all the
events

kings who ruled the that of Palestine or were distinguished men, UYticea have a singleperianth. But it is at all a suggestive fact, and leads us to question
that all the whether

ourselves

there

must

not

have

been

some

VALUE

OF

FORMAL

INDUCTION.

reason or gifts,

why
the

the

kings
in

in

flowers

question had question have

of

remarkable
one

perianth
friend and
ten
one

only.
For find his
and
on

instance, if

I go

into the of
ten

room

library consists examining

induction them

books,
that in
me

and
are or

only,
and
a

find

they
to

all books

describing

travels

China

Japan,
down

complete

enables

lay

che

proposition,
All my

friend'sbooks

are

books

of travel

in China

and

Japan.
This would the

suggests
never

to

me

train
I

have fact them

to

arisen

had the

thought that confined myself to

of

of

isolated
at

respecting
one

nature

each

book.
are

Looking
directed individual

by
in

one,

my

thoughts
each, and
at

merely
facts

the

character it.
my
or

of

the them

narrated
to

Looking
friend must

together, I begin
have is in
been

think

that China
or

either
that he

travellingin
to

Japan,
must
or

or

intending
one or

go

there,
these

that

he

have

friends is pro that for

other write
or

of
an

countries,
on

that

he

posing
some

to

article
he

the have

subject, or
a

reason

other

must

specialinterest
I
am

in China Or
Roman
to

and
take

Japan.
an

historical instance.
as

studying

history, and
who low
at

read the of

early Emperors
gusted
among

ruled
standard

the

history of the dis Empire, I am morality prevalent

the
the

them, the cruelty,the ambition,

to
an

lust that

attaches

their

name.

grossed by

insatiate

and

en Julius Caesar unscrupulous ambition"

find

37*

ON

FORMAL

INDUCTION.

Augustus
among

man

of
of

pleasure
"

while I

the

rest

were

the

vilest the

men.

observe,
out

moreover,

that when of the

Empire
there

had
was a

passed

of the

hands

Caesars

decided

improvement.
of the
Caesars
were

I also notice

that

the evil tendencies the who

first two succeeded
an

increased,

and

that four

Emperors
them.

superior to
I

the
my

embody

reflections in

inductive

syllogism:

Julius

Cczsar, Augustus, Tiberius, Caligula, whose lives were Domitian, Nero, were men
marked
crime or by selfishness who ruled
;

All

Empire were Julius Cczsar, Augustus, Tiberius, Caligula, Domitian, Nero ;

tlie Ccesars
men

the Cczsars

the Roman

.""

All

who

ruled
were

the Roman

whose

lives

marked

Empire were or by selfishness

crime. The
me

conclusion
ask

of this there

syllogism naturallyleads
not

to

whether

must

be

some

influence

tending to deteriorate the character and of Emperor of Rome, further

influence is
a

in the

position
that
to

whether

universal

one,

or

is limited

this

members been have to family whose appear spe ciallyaffected. This gives occasion to an interesting have been would train of thought which never I not through the mentally gone suggested had of Complete Induction. process The weak point of a Complete Induction is that that it is in so many not are sure cases we perfectly Complete. We fancy that we have not overlooked the of the particulars whence to we any one argue

VALUE

OF

FORMAL

INDUCTION.

373

universal
some reason

law, while
has

all the

time
our

there

is

one

that

for

escaped
Roman

notice,

and

perhaps

this very
In

one case

is fatal to the

the

of the
there

of our law. universality Emperors, it is always intervened the

next

possiblethat

might the reign of one Emperor short space of time during whom historians Emperor
some reason

have and which

never

between

recorded,

there
knew

reigned some
of,
may
case,
or

for

passed
certain have any
:

over

in silence. this is not

We the

prac but
we no

feel tically
never room can

that

that

absolute

certaintythat
To
a

leaves
a more

for

possible
let
us

doubt.

take

practical case
century
ago

suppose known

chemist
:

arguing

about

the

metals

anti Iron, copper, silver,gold, lead, tin, mercury, bismuth, nickel, platinum,and aluminium, mony,

all

are

heavier

than

water

Iron, copper, silver,gold, lead, tin, mercury,

mony,
are

anti

bismuth, nickel, platinum,and

;

aluminium

all the metals

are

.'.

All Here

the metals would be

but

heavier

than

water,

Complete
time

Induction
the

of the metals
would

then

known,

nevertheless

conclusion

be false ; since

that

potassium, sodium, lithium,

to

"c., have
these Of meration
are

been

pronounced
water.
are some

be

metals,
where

and

all

lighterthan
there
is

course

cases

an

enu

of completeness, e.g., if perfectlysecure that January, February, "c., all have twentyI argue in concluding be wrong I cannot eight days or more, have twenty-eight of the year that all the months

374

O.V

FORMAL

INDUCTION.

days or more. Tuesday, "c., deity, that all

names

From
are

the fact that all named

Sunday, Monday,
some

after
week

heathen their acci

the

days

of the

derive

from
and

heathen

deities. But
rare,

this is and

merely

dental
we

comparatively
draw any and

for this of

reason

cannot

clear

line

demarcation

between The mentioned

Complete
real

Incomplete
is
between

Induction. the
or

contrast

Induction instances

above, in which
a

the instance

given merely suggest the

in which which
are a

the the
a

priori law, and inductions instances on given are the foundation is based, whether law they posteriori

The complete or an incomplete enumeration. modern since the time of the Refor ever spirit, mation, has been doing its best to obliterate this

contrast, to
in the
to

degrade
which

the

law
to

which

has

its

reason

and itself,
means

looks
to

of level
for

enabling us
of the law the

examples merely as realize its binding force, depends

its power
upon
to

the

which of

the bind.

examples
Under

existence of

it ignores questioning naiure, the God of nature, and is willing to accept as laws are only those which gathered together by human industry, and will not allow a higher kind of law which is based the inner essence of things,and on Himself. the nature of God It ultimately upon be secured can recognizes only those which by a and allows to any of those no plebiscite, superiority having the direct sanction of the Supreme Ruler of the Universe, and as a single binding as soon

pretence

concrete

instance the

presents

itself to

us.

In

other

words,

Inductive

spirit thrusts

out

of

sight

THE

ANCIENT

AND

MODERN

SPIRIT.

375

priori
be all

laws,
in

and all. and

makes While

posteriori certainly
in

investigation
fosters that
tends
com

to

it

mercial
to

activity
material

progress and

all it
and

pertains
to

things forget

sensible,

make

men

things
realization

immaterial

spiritual,
belief the

and those visible

destroys
inner

their

of,

and

their which

in,

realities,
is
br,t
n

compared
shadow
and

with

thing

of

nought.

CHAPTER
MATERIAL

VI.
INDUCTION.

Material

Induction
"

Philosophers
duction of
"

recognized by Aristotle" Opinion of Catholic and the Induction Syllogism Incomplete In

"

Material

Induction
"

and

Formal

Logic" The Physical Laws

Methods
"

Province
"

Material

Logic
Methods Method

The
"

certainty of
Inductive Difference
"

Hypo
of various of of

thetical

Certainty
"

The of of

Method the

Agreement
Methods Residues" Mill's
"

Instances Variations

of
"

Concomitant of
"

Method
"

Combination of

Inductive Value of

Methods Inductive

Fallacy
Methods-

Theory
of

Causation

Dangers

rapid Induction.
to

WE

now

come

Incomplete
as

or

Material

Induction.
Aris

Incomplete Induction totle,though he does

it.
It
comes

s'ich is
say

recognized by
much

not

very

respecting
as a

under

his

definition
to

of Induction
and

process

from he

Particulars

Universals,
of

the very and

instance

gives

is

an

instance

Material

Incomplete Induction.
Pilots,charioteers, "c.t
most .*.

who

know

their business

are

skilful,
who know

Generally all skilful.

Further, he

their

business

are

most

describes

it

as

more

persuasive,and
arrived
at

clearer, and

more

capable of being
the

by

per

within ception, and more while the syllogism is more

reach

of the

masses,
as

forcible and

clearer

an

378 be

MATERIAL

INDUCTION.

may

sufficient to has

establish
and

general law, where

men

that law mankind reminded than

to

the constant

universal

in its

favour, and
fresh

that

testimony of need only to be

adduced
an

of the law be

by the instances
truth co-existence

rather examina

taught

any

from

tion of the invariable of

of the two exhibit

as

thought, which
Aristotle's

the instances

objects invariably
is
a re

united. brief reference

to

Induction
treatment

markable
some

contrast

to the elaborate
on

of it

by

and the Logic. St. Thomas scholastic logicians generally are in equally meagre their discussion of it. Even the Catholic logicians of the
or a

modern

writers

present

day
which

pass
are

it

over

in

few

paragraphs
an

few pages,
Baconian

devoted
to

in part to
an
can

attack

on

Induction, and
has
no

assertion be reduced
and

that
to

Induction

force unless Sir W.

it

form. syllogistic Scottish schoolmen school and

Hamilton,
are

Mansel,
at
one

the the their

of

philosophers

with in

modern

Catholic

writers

of the intrusion of Induction, and, although jealousy they do not agree with them in advocating the neces sityof reducing it to the form of the syllogism, yet they would assign it a very subordinate place in a treatise on Logic. It is the modern school of of experimentalists, which Mr. John Stuart Mill is the illustrious leader, who Induction the main as question put forward of the science of Logic, the question that includes This suggests to us three questions : all others." far does Induction into Logic at all? 1. How come be capable Is it true that all Induction must 2.
"

CATHOLIC

PHILOSOPHERS

ON

INDUCTION.

379

of

being

reduced

to

form syllogistic

in order

to

l"e

valid ?
3. Is the

neglectof
be

Induction
or

by
?

modern

Catholic

logiciansto
We
are

praised
unless

blamed of
warn

speaking
and shall
our

here
we

Material
our use

or

Incomplete
to
sense

Induction,
contrary,
the
"

readers

the
to

we

continue

to

it in this

end

of

present
says

chapter.
Cardinal the

Induction,"
whatever

Zigliara,

"

has

no

force

apart from
says

plete Induction,"
of

argument
says

different

Syllogism." "Incom Tongiorgi, "is not a form from the Syllogism." In

" "

duction,"

Mendive,

is

true

form of

of

reason

ing, and
it should

it

pertains to the essence be a true Syllogism."

"does but
seen

reasoning
the

that
says

"

Induction,"
form
to

Liberatore,
in Yet

not

differ in

from the
reduced

Syllogism
it takes."

its essence,
we

only
when

have

that rules

syllogistic

Syllogism and uses the copula in an altogetherdifferent meaning. How ? then are to solve the difficulty we into our have usual we As to examine carefully There of terms. use Syllogismis an ambiguous term. is the Deductive Syllogism with its figuresand moods,
such
is as we

form, it breaks

the

of the

have
to
"

described based
upon may may

them the be
be

above,
Dictum

and

which
et

subject

and

de omni
or

millo, viz.,
of
a

Whatever

affirmed
or

denied

universal and

subject
In this any

affirmed
are

denied

of

each that

all the

individuals
sense

who

included

under

subject."
at

Induction
to

is outside it to

the

Syllogism, and
form
once

attempt
a

reduce of

exhibits

violation

syllogistic laws. syllogistic

)8o

MATERIAL

INDUCTION.

But

beside

the in
on

Deductive
a

Syllogism
sense

the

word

Syllogism reasoning
"

is used
based
two

wider the

for any

process

of

more

Whenever
a

objects

of

general principle, identical thought are

they are also identical with each other." This principle includes not merely the Deductive Syllogism, but the Inductive Syllogism also.
Induction
to

with

third

therefore

comes

into
to the

Logic
form

as

reducible
Deduc

form, but syllogistic tive Syllogism. This

not

of the

is true When

of both
I argue /. and

Complete
:

and

Incomplete James

Induction.
and

I.

II., Charles II., Charles

II.

were

head

strong monarchs,

James
\

I. and

7. and

II.

were

all the

monarchs All

of the

Stuart the

the monarchs

of

dynasty, Stuart dynasty were

head

strong,

Figure by my universal conclusion. the copula not for the I use of true co-existence objects of thought, necessary since it is not inconceivable that future Stuarts might arise and minor, but for the fact which falsify my
one

I violate

of the rules

of the

Third

is true

in

the

concrete.

refuses to

obey

the

My argument, authorityof the Dictum

no

moreover,

de omni

et

nullo, and

is therefore

true

form

of the Deductive

is a perfectlyvalid Syllogism. But my argument with the principle syllogismin that it is in accordance of identity I have just given : it is in accordance with the laws of thought, it is perfectly logical. of Incomplete Induction ? For But is this true

instance, I

ar^ue

from

the

fact

that I have

observed

MATERIAL

INDUCTION

AND

FORMAL

LOGIC.

381

on

number when have

of separate there been has

been

days
a

in the

year

that

all the bare the

:

days
meter

gradual by
rain
;

fall in the
and I state

followed

result of my

observation March

in the

followingpremiss

January iSth,
were

^th, April jth, October

;

igth

succeeded

by rainy weather

^th, April jth, October igtJi January iSth, March were days on which there was a fall of the baro
meter
,

All

the
are

days

on

which

there is

fallof the

barometer

days followedby rainy weather.

that the conclusion
may

In strict

order

hold

true

in

be able that January assert to logic,I must all the i8th, March 4th, April7th, October igth were

days
minor

when

there

was

fall in
But and

the
may
:

barometer,
I not

and

this is obviously ridiculous.

in another

put my
is true

form,
true

say

What when the

my

oj
a

January iSth, "c., is fall in the barometer certainlyfollows, and

in
a

of
If
can

all I

days
can,

there

was

? I

conclusion

re-arrange

syllogism
argue

convenient

form

in the

First

Figure, and

thus What is true

October

ofJanuary iSth, March tfh,April jth, is true of all days when the barometer igth,
is true

falls;
Rain
near

at hand

April ^th,October
'

Rain

near

at hand

is

ofJanuary iSth, March qth, igth; the which true of all days on

barometer

falls.
therefore of the

Everything
tive character

depends on the representa days in question. If they have

382

MATERIAL

INDUCTION.

nothing in
the
with
one

common

save

this

one

common can

feature be
connected

of

fall of the the

can

barometer

which
the

coming deny
between

change in
there
a

weather,
be
some

then
sort

no

that

must

of
and

connection

fall in

the

barometer

will justify at hand, which near us rainy weather in predicting of all days on which the barometer that they will be succeeded falls, by rain.

We other

have whether

then the

to

find

out

by

some

means

or

major premiss of our syllogism is But before we of this enter true. on an investigation point,there is a previous question. Does it concern us as logiciansto investigateit at all ? Is it within
our

scope
to

to

examine

into
as

the various evidence

?

instances
Has
not

in the

order

sift their value

his premisses as true, suppos logician to assume ing always that they contain nothing which violates and of right reason ? of the human mind the laws Or is he to employ, in order to discover their truth, the various jy which
methods

of observation of all
a

and

experience

the truth

and posteriori

Synthetical

Propositions have to be tested ? If these lie outside not the province of Logic, the moderns are only unfair in giving so large a space and to one-sided in their very conception Induction, but are all wrong
of the task

that

they have
reader

This

questioncan
and

perform. answered only be satisfactorily

to

by reminding the
Formal

of the

distinction

between

(or Applied) Logic. Formal Logic simply takes its premisses for granted so long as they do not sin against any law of thought or of which we contradict any proposition of the truth
Material

ON

MATERIAL

INDUCTION.

383

are

absolutelycertain. comparatively
are narrow

Applied Logic steps outside

field, and
asks

the
terms

what

the

admission into the regulate our mind of any mental proposition as a part of our furniture. Formal Logic in its strict sense, therefore, has nothing to do with the conditions under which
we can

which

arrive
to which

at
we

Universal
are

Propositions

other

than

those mind sitions of what

itself. which
we

It has
we are

of the compelled by the nature nothing to do with those Propo led to regard as true, by reason external

witness laws
as
a

in the learned

world, and

which
not

depend
rooted has those But

upon

by

observation of

and

in

us

priori conditions
with the methods

nothing
a

to

do

thought. It of arriving at
Formal
and

truths. posteriori

the hard

and

fast

line

between

Applied Logic is one of theory rather than one that have be practically observed. We can already con of Logic, though here we sidered the Foundations were stepping outside the strict boundary of Formal Logic. Similarlywe important to look to
order furnish
But to
us

shall the

do

well of

in
our

matter

question so syllogism in
can

discover with
a

whether solid
now

modern for
a

Induction

basis the

universal

premiss.
whether
to

there

is
and

further

question
any

observation consideration whether that should

we as

experiment
the of
as

have of

claim

under
means

head

adding
and

regard
be
tested

certain

Applied Logic ; the to propositions adopt as such, they

the results
to

examined
as

into, and
to

which

they

lead

their Can

admission

into

the

mind.

qualificationsfor they give us the

384
we certainty

MATERIAL

INDUCTION.

? requireas logicians

Probably

no

one

in his
can

senses us

would
some

deny that
sort

external

observation the
sun

give

of

certainty. That
a

will rise to-morrow into the

as

morning, that
fall to
be earth does

stone
as

thrown certain

air

will
can

again, are
not

anything
laws
But

that

depend

upon

the

inner

that
a

such

regulate all being. certaintyis,strictly speaking, always

an

practical or

absolute

never hypothetical, certainty. It is within some

essential
bounds

or

the

of

that possibility
vene

unknown

comet

might inter
sun

between

the

earth
some

and

the

during the
and
stone

coming night, or
terious
moon,

that

undiscovered away
our

mys
to the

influence
not
to

might whisk
mention the
we

further call
a

of possibility miracle.
are we a

Divine
Here
on

interference it is that
a

by what

laws, posteriori

which

based
have

observation

and

experiment,
more

differ

(as
from

already remarked
laws.
In the
case

than of
the

once)

priori
can

latter, no
set

miracle
them and

intervene, no
God
or

possiblehypothesis can
cannot

aside. two,

Himself

make

five out

of two

prevent

equal to one plane triangle to be less than either of the any interior or opposite angles. It is beyond the utmost limit of Divine Omnipotence to bring about any of these results,simply because they are in themselves realized make if they were contradictory and would God These not are a priorilaws only deny Himself. but of Being laws of thought and of human reason,
and

from things equal to the same being the exterior angle of another, or cause

of the Divine

Nature.

They

are

based

upon

the

386

MATERIAL

INDUCTION.

our

acceptance

of them,

as

such, has in it an
of this
kind

element

of weakness.
It

is the is
in

attainment
the

of

certainty
that have
have

which
come

regulated by
since
the

various

methods
and

time Mill

of Bacon,
under be

which
name

been Methods

elaborated

by

the

of

the

of Induction.
were an

It cannot

denied

that these indifference

methods
and

object of comparative

neglect to the Scholastic and Aristotelian philo sophy. The pre-reformation world did not recog nize the importance of those modern discoveries and
inventions the
which

have

revolutionized

the world

since

With the Aristotelian days of Bacon. sophy dominant, the steam-engine, gas, the the steam-loom, sewing-machines, and light, mechanical all
never a

philo
electric
all the

substitutes

for human
not

labour, would, in
existed
at

probability,either
arrived
at

have

all, or

their had
no

priori method and hypothesis

research and

is

the

perfection. The for hypotheses, fondness fertile mother of physical

present
Whether
all these whether have

discovery.
human

really fostered
made and We
men

progress,

more stronger, healthier,

they have honest, virtuous,

not
concern us.

happy, is a point which have already wandered

does
too

far away

from

the

question before us, which is this : Are we to admit what called the into Logic in its wider are sense elaborated with Inductive are Methods, and which skill and ability wonderful by John Stuart Mill ?
If
we

look

at

the

matter

with

the

strictness

and
no

accuracy

of the

certaintysave

who knows philosophic logician, universal absolute no certainty,

laws

HYPOTHETIOAL

CERTAINTY.

387

save

those

which
must

are answer

founded
this

on

the

inner in the in

nature

of

things,we
To

question
a

negative.
a

give the Inductive logical treatise, seems

are

methods
to
to
a

place
the

strictly
which

exalt of

laws

based

on

them It
seems

sort

laws. priori
to

to

exalt

equalitywith the a hypothesis into law,

to certainty,

confuse the

with practical distinctions the

absolute between and

obli

terate

the the

eternal, the

necessary,

immutable,
mutable.

the transitory,

contingent, the
In
over

spite of this, these

present day. present
in the of
our

methods

cannot
are

be

passed
a

in the

They

too

important
are

factor
to

condition

of

human

society
weapons

admit

which

have

been

neglectingthem. forged by*what

it would their

They
be

is called

the

march
to

of human their
now a

and intellect, and

suicidal

deny
has
under

value
new

efficacity. As
so we

science admit which

reason

meaning,
of

must

the

category

scientific with
must to

laws all

those

the
repu appre abuse.

scholastic diated. ciate We

may

philosophy
Besides,
we

good

understand

and

them
must
not

in

order them the

protest against their

due

give
usurp

their whole

in order
human

that

they
priori
rather This

field of
down
a

science.
a

Mill laws

and
to

his the

followers level of of of

drag
the
a

all the

or posteriorly

deny
is the methods been

the

existence result

priori
the

laws

at

all.

fatal which

the
at

rejection of
Reformation,
But
set

scholastic
and

began
various in their

has

carried

further the

day by day.
methods
own

fas

est et ab hoste

doceri,and

forth

in
9

detail
most

by

Mill

have,

proper

limits,

388

MATERIAL

INDUCTION.

important function to perform, and applicationto our every-day life.

We the have
now

are

of constant

to

return

to

our

consideration

of

premiss
Our

which
on

asserts

the
we

representativenature
are

of the instances
law.

which
are

going
us

to

base
means

our

methods
;

to
are

give
to

the

of

ascertainingthis
what is true
is true

they

decide
our

for

us

whether

of the

instances
real

under
or

consideration
at
as

of all instances

possible,or
us, to
so

least it is any

they are to settle the question for of things possible in the nature certaintyrespecting it. Our that premiss then asserted January i8th, "c.,
barometer is true the

far

arrive

at

what
on

was

true

of the

of all
value
to

days
of

which

falls,and
upon What
to
our

our

argument
this propo it satis in

depends
sition.

being

able

establish
to

is necessary

in order these

prove

is factorily
common

show, that
could

days
a

had

nothing
with heaviness

which
of

possiblybe
save

connected

the

approach
this

rainy weather

certain

in the air indicated

by

the

fall in the barometer.

If

could
have

be
a

ascertained

should
was
a

beyond a doubt, then we perfect physical certaintythat there

of
cause

connection
in the

and

effect

between rain.

the But
are

heaviness
in
not

air and
we never

the
can

subsequent
be
sure

point

of fact

that
to

there

other

characteristics
be

common

these

days

which rain.
a even

might
To be

the

source

of the

absolutelycertain
of

of

knowledge
the
we can

the

inner

nature

of phenomenon this would require of things which

not

greatest of scientists
say is that
we

does
are

possess.
to

All

that

unable

detect any

THE

INDUCTIVE

METHODS

389

common

characteristic
account

would

for the the

and

days in question which subsequent rain, save only the

the the

in the

heaviness

in

air and

consequent
connection air is
at

fall in the between

most

barometer,
the
a

therefore
heaviness

rain

and

the

in the

but

strong probability.
Here
we

have

case

of the the

first of

Mr.

Mill's

experimental
We words
cannot
:

methods better

"

Method

of Agreement.
it in his
own

do

than

formulate

METHOD
"

OF

AGREEMENT.

If two

or

more

instances

of
one

the

phenomenon
in

under
common,

investigationhave
the
agree

only
in

circumstance alone

circumstance is the
cause

which

all the

instances

(or effect) of the

given

phenomenon."
Our
goes

readers the
not

will observe

that
we

in this law have of

Mr.

Mill

beyond
exacts

requirements

given above,
no common

and

only

the

presence
account

circumstance
save

which but

would

for of
no

the

result

one,

absolutelythe
at
can

presence
one

common

circumstance before of any barometer the

mena same us we

all
never

save

alone.
two
save

In

the

case

find

rainy days,
that it does
on

devoid the
; and

common

circumstance falls and

on

one

the

other

not

is true
to

of all

possible

instances
we

of pheno
this
be

be

investigated. Until
the law fulfilled,
we can never

have
never

impos

sible condition and

more

can

applied,

therefore than But

a

derive

from

this method

strong probability.
is another
method which
comes

there

in to

390

MATERIAL

INDUCTION.

supplement
find
a

the

former.

Let

us

suppose
to
one save

that

we

day exactlycorresponding
in of the
we on

of the
one,
are

afore-named the

every air.

circumstance
In

days viz.,

weight
find

all else

they
air

exactly heavy light

have

alike. When
we

examine the
on

the rain record when the

when
we

of the year
was

that

day
the

rain fine

followed,
weather

and

day

it

was

came

after it.

Here

should

perfect physical certaintyif only we could find two days corresponding exactlyin every possiblecircum
stance
as save one

there

would

be

no

doubt

whatever
with

to

the

connection
was

of this circumstance
the

the in

result that

present where
But

circumstance
the

question was
was

present, absent

where

circumstance
find

absent.
two

here, too, it is impossible to

any

such

thousand that
we can

of necessity be a days; there must the two. All points of difference between have

is

certain of any

amount

dence, and
which
save seem

the

absence

of correspon points of difference with

is

the

likelyto be connected which single circumstance

in the
one case

the

result

conspicuous
in the
to
a

for its presence

other.

and
we

its absence
are no

Here, therefore,again
and
can an

limited farther. of the

Mr.

probable connection,
In this
case we

get

have
we

instance
will

Method

of Difference. Again
words
: METHOD
"

give it in

Mill's

OF

DIFFERENCE.

If

an

instance

in which
and

the

phenomenon
in which

under it does
save

occurs investigation

another

not one,

occur

have
one

every

circumstance
in

in
the

common

that

occurring only

former,

the

METHOD

OF

DIFFERENCE.

391

circumstance
is the of the

in which the

alone
cause,
or

the
an

two

instances

differ,

effect,or
cause

indispensable part

of the

phenomenon."
method,
is Mr. rather
cases

But

this

second

as

Mill
to

very

per

remarks, tinently
than
to

applicable
is to antecedents We

experiment
we

observation, that
the them

where of

can

artificially vary
receive another

instead

having
have

to

ready-made.
which

will,therefore, take
moreover,

instance,
of which

will,

the

advantage
Research
case

other illustrating
cannot

methods

of Inductive
to

be

so

easilyapplied
very

the

of the We will

weather.
take
a

familiar time
to

and

practicalcase.
a

I have ache Somehow

sort
in

of late, from
the I

time, risen with

I
cannot

head

morning

for which

account.

of

be connected fancy it must digestivedisarrangement, and is the which

to
me

with that which this

some

dis

arrangement
taken and
occurs

result of does that that take

a

some

food
my

I have

not

suit

stomach.

One

day
a

it

my

headache

always
may I

follows
be its for that
for

special diet,
I

and

possibly this
note

cause.

therefore after

of

what

have

dinner, and
in
most
cases

little
I

experience
eaten next

I discover

when
a

have the

jugged by

hare I of

dinner
to

I have
to

headache
the

morning.
means

set

work

test

connection
and

the

methods I take varied another

a

of Agreement
number of

Difference.
my

First has

of all
as on

days

when
one one

dinner

been soup,

as

possible. On On day none.

another

day
mutton,

I have
I have
on

taken had

day

beef

for

the chief dish, on

another

veal, on

MATERIAL

INDUCTION.

another

pork. On one day I have drunk port wine, another sherry,on another champagne, on anothei on another another claret, on hock, on nothing but
water.

day I have taken pastry, on anothei and so on not, on one day cheese, on another none, varying my dinner in every possibleway adinfinitum,
On
one

jn

the

days of trial.
the
common

But

on

been each
Here

element

days there of jugged hare, and

a

all these

has
on

of them
we

there
a

has

been

headache of
on

following.
Method
I

have
The

good
various
as

instance

the which

oj

Agreement.
from
common

days
far
as

suffei
no one

headache

agree,

can

tell,in

circumstance

of diet, save

only in this
there

specialdish.
But have I
cannot

be other

certain
cause

that

may

not

been

any
to

happened
have
or

coincide

with
on

for my headache the jugged hare. the

which
I may

been

rather
a

tired

perhaps
wine
may

little have

more

evenings in question, thirstythan usual, and

attractive
a same

the
other

been

more

than

on

days. So I proceed to On two given days I take the cise and order exactlythe same of wine, and the same amount
hour.

further

experiment.
of exef

amount

dinner, drink exactly

go to bed
at

the
two

same

The
on

only difference
the former
I make
on

between

these
an

days
in
result head

is that
my

jugged hare
omit it.
a

item

bill of

fare, and

the other

The

is that

the former
whereas
on

day is followed

by

severe

ache,

the latter I rise fresh and

ready for

business. Vegetus
Here I have the
consueta

ad

munia

surgo.

Method

of Difference.

At first the

MATERIAL

INDUCTION.

am

now a

approaching certainty,but possibleelement

of the circumstances
to

there

is

nevertheless from
been

the

chance
to

uncertaintyarising varying headache having

which

of

owing

by

curious

coincidence which
amount

happened
accident hare

quite by
of the
a

produce it in a severity in proportion to the was

for dinner.
I
am

jugged

eaten

after I look the

all still in around truth for of my

region

of

and probabilities,
to

final method

try and

assure

inference.

I have
sorts

for years
and

of food

studying the effect of various drink, as well as of walking, hard

been
on

study, riding, boating, "c., Long experience has taught me

those.
next
me

my the

constitution. of

effect of each
rather

Beef

and
so

mutton

make

me

morning,
rise well

does

port wine
with

heavy the champagne makes

myself. Plum-pudding produces indigestion; walking, riding, "c., various mental of bodily fatigue; severe different kinds labour a curious feelingof oppression on the top of
contented
my

head, and
stock

so

on.

On

some

particularmorning
and
to trace

I take

of "my

bodily condition
; I
am

its various each

and

constituent all of them

symptoms
to
some

able

familiar
can

antecedent,
in the

all except
state

the
my

headache.

trace

present

of of the
has

the

body the result of most previous day, the mental

kinds of

of the
and

circumstances

various

food, the
save

amount

bodily labour, of sleep,each

hare. all those
I

its familiar
I subduct

result, all
from
the
causes,

the

jugged

Hence
can

various
and

results

trace

to known

minor (neglecting the

headache

details)
and
on

I have

left

on

the

one

hand

METHOD

OF

RESIDUES.

the

other

the

jugged
for must

hare.

Surely then
the
cause

this

result

unaccounted taken often the the

spring from
This much Mr. with

not

yet
can

into be
Method

consideration.

method,

which

employed

advantage,
Mill

is called it in

of Residues. followinglaw :
METHOD
"

formulates

OF

RESIDUES.

Subduct

from

any

phenomenon
to

such
be

part

as

is of

known certain
menon

by previous
antecedents,
is the

induction
and

the of

effect

the

residue

the

pheno

effect of the
us

remaining

antecedent."

Does Most bution

a

give decidedly not,

of effect
a

this

if

we

perfect physical certainty? take it by itself. My attri

A, of
b to

to

cause

B, is

at

best

only
I
con

probable argument,
be
or sure

and I

even

if it is all correct, exhausted

I
am

cannot

that

have

either
not

sequents

possible
that the the

antecedents.

abso is due

lutelycertain
to

oppression
of the

in the

head
At

study

or

heaviness

port wine.
to

most
ever-

this method

only

contributes of

its share

the

increasing stream developing itself certainty.

But when then the firm
we mere

probabilitywhich
the resistless

is

gradually practical together,

into

river of

all these have

Methods

are

united
we

surely beyond
to

certainty. Surely
assertion
a

can

go

tentative of

of

an

hypothesis
a

the

conviction

well-grounded law,
and effect ;
a

law

which
we as are

certainlyconnects considering as
someway

together the
cause

circumstances
or

at

least and

in

connected

together by

fixed

stable law

of causation.

MATERIAL

INDUCTION.

Here

we

enter

upon in

wider

topic which
To

we

have who

already
stillhold
and
causes

discussed
to
a

this

volume.

those

prioritruths, to
there opens

the school
out
an

of Aristotle vista of the First

causes
con

St.

Thomas,
and
to

endless

effects every
are

descending

from
works.

God,
These

Cause,
and nected

detail of His

effects

twofold, metaphysicalcauses,
effects

with

their

with

an

absolute

certainty

which
with

is inviolable,and their effects with

physical causes,
conditional

connected

or physical

certainty.
are

With

metaphysical
;

causation
no

these

methods

not

experiments or of observation detect the a priori law. It is with to and physical causation physical laws that they are have detect alone concerned. the to a They Posteriori laws which depend on the free action of All things that God the Creator. has made aie has connected He together by physical laws which
concerned

it needs

series of

decreed, but
any and

from

the

action
cases

of which
at

He

may

at

time
which
we

except certain
He does

His

except
school
and Cause and

from

good pleasure, time to time by

what

call
to

miracle.
modern
cause

But

the

of sensationalists, ta
are

Mill have

and
no

Bain,

effect is but effect

cause

words

which
uncon

meaning.
antecedent, consequent.
:

invariable

ditional ditional
its effect

invariable, uncon
need
not

The

contain

there

that links them universe

where

of things nothing in the nature together: there may be portions of the is no there such thing as invariable
is

unconditional tion between

sequence.
cause

The

belief

in the

connec

and

effect is to the

sensationalist

COMBINATION

OF

INDUCTIVE

METHODS.

397

merely
how after would what the do

the
we

result know

of

long experience in the that this experience may

were no

past, and
not

here

vary?
be

If sensationalists

logical there

for them

possiblereason past? Because

certaintyabout the future, for is there why it should resemble it has always done The so? very
in terms; for the future them is

suppositionis a
is stillunborn. that
one

contradiction All that of the has

experiencehas taught
past
has hitherto been
an

portion

resembled unbroken

another, that

there

always
in the

uniformity of
and

succession But
never can

series of antecedents
as

consequents.
had
and

of the future have

any

such

we

never

have
our

experience, and
if
we

conjectures respecting
to

it are, the

logically
Mr.
an

follow
and

their

conclusions
merest

his into

school, the
the air

theory of guess-work,
sort

Mill
arrow

shot

without

any mark.

of

reason

for

believingthat
Our
a so

it will hit the

conclusion, therefore,is that these Methods

valuable
to

are

most

contribution, if not
the
course

to

Logic strictly discovery

and

called, yet
Aristotle
first

of

human

scientific research. from

of the and

The

Catholic

St. Thomas

of principles have
a

all

philosopher learns the a priori law, one knowledge, that every

"

effect must extends

not

cause."
to

He

knows

that

this

law

merely
some us as

effects
a

following as

particular

applications of
known
to

soon us

presented
as

before

and

becomes priori law, which of it is single instance a as grasped by the intelligence,

in the

case

of the deductions
It extends
a

of mathematics,

but to

others is

also.

to

effects

following from
as

what

rightly called

law, inasmuch

it is

general

398

MATERIAL

INDUCTION.

principleunder
are

which but from

one

vast

number

of

particulars by particular
at

ranged,
In

is
a

nevertheless
vast
case as

arrived of

generalization
instances.
versal

number in the In the

the

other
one case

the

uni

law

of causation

holds.

cause

joined to effect in virtue things; in the other, simply

is
has
so

of the
because

inner

nature

of

the will of God of

the

disposed
has

the

arrangements
In

universe

that He
makes
on our

experience known is alreadyimprinted to us a law which intelligence ; in the other, experience makes
one

created.

the

case,

known

to

us

law

which

is

stamped

upon

the world

outside, but which

furniture
a

when of
case

number
one

In the

mental a part of our only becomes have we weighed and sifted carefully of its operation. individual instances of Induction the Methods are rarely,
use practical

if ever,

of any

in the

other

they arc
their
true

simply
We

invaluable.
are

now

in

position to assign

of which Bacon was place to the Inductive methods Mr. the harbinger, and John Stuart Mill and his school the prophets and apostles. claim a place in Material I. They certainly Logic
if not in and over ignore them pass Induction with that a passing remark include virtuallycomplete, i.e.,must

Formal.

To

Material
must

it
a

be

number
1

of instances
the of
same

sufficient
have

to

afford

reasonable
per in existence
we a

At

time

we as

absolute

certainty as
remains
But

to

the

manence

physicallaws
to

long as

the universe of of God. the

since

this is demanded

by
the

the wisdom

have

not

absolute
case,
nor

certainty as
have
we

application

law

in

particular

absolute

certaintythat

the

universe

will continue

to exist.

VALUE

OF

INDUCTIVE

METHODS.

399

basis
is

of the

certitude,
greatest
if of

is

to

omit

subject

which

of

of modern is necessary

branch importance in every investigation. A just appreciation of it

we

are

to

keep

pace

with should

the
not

development
be of
so

scientific research.
in

We

easily taken
modern and

by

the
we

hasty generalizations
had the
use

the

scientist,if
the them kind
at

of these
may It be

methods derived
no use

of
our

from
to

certainty that fingers'ends.

Aristotle in the

,is of
St.

allege the
If

authority of
lived lead in

and

Thomas. would have

they

had the

present day they

methods

taken

regulating the
own

of modern
down eager

research, just as in their

day they laid

The
a

principlesof deductive argument. in their day was questioning of nature

in
a

the

thing

conducted

very

different

fashion

from

that which

gradually perfected, and mechanical setting forth of discovery advanced. Any elaborate then have be the methods been to pursued would and superfluous and unnecessary premature, whereas
experience
has
now

it is not
to

only
one

of the who

greatest value

in itself, but

encounter successfully and the preten the inroads of hasty generalization, estab its place among sions of hypothesis to take

necessary

would

lished
2.

laws. These

Inductive

Methods

can

never

give us

abso

but they can certainty, give us physical certainty, the certainty,because give us absolute They cannot
lute

laws their for

they
Maker.

reveal

to

us can

are

reversible
us

at

the

will

of

They
reason as

give
that able

physical certainty,
human mind without
is
so

the

simple

the
to

constructed

to

be

judge

any

400

MATERIAL

INDUCTION.

reasonable of which
one

doubt, from
it may be

combination
no

of arguments individual the is

mind.

that
carry

single and
to

is sufficient to the
more

conviction combined
make
us one

But and

number

of

them
to

enough,
all

than conclusion

enough,
to

perfectly sure
and
con

of the

which

they
on

currentlypoint.
3. We
must

always
to

be

our

guard

against

allowing ourselves
of the
concurrent

be

truth

of

some

persuaded into a conviction the general hypothesis when

sufficient of itself to
remember

evidence it. We
must

is not

establish

Aristotle's admir
and

able distinctions
that the
one

between

Deduction
clear

Induction,

is

more

forcible and
more

teal 0-""/"e"7T6/9ov), the other

(ftiacmKtoTepov persuasive (7ri0ai"a"masses.

repov),and
have
too

within often
men

the
seen

reach the

of the

We

intellectual

convictions
guesses

of

scientific

shaken

by

the
which

brilliant

which
as

Induction

suggests, and
in

them justifying previouslyheld to

should
process based

we

be

in

discarding the be true. Very slow and allowing any law arrived
to set
more are

they regarded beliefs that they

cautious
at

by

of Pure
upon
a

Induction

aside

any

conviction mode of

higher
course

and

certain

argument.
as
1

Of

there
case

occasional

instances, for
one

the so-often
The condemnation writers in any

quoted
of it is

of Galileo,1 but
has
been
so

Galileo

often
to

Catholic does
not

that

scarcely necessary
the

explainedby point out that it

Galileo
\he

was ex

way condemned

affect

Pope

cathedra, and

question of Papal Infallibility. by the Congregation of the Index, not by the Pope cannot delegate 'his Infallibility.
guess

Whether

Galileo's

brilliant
to

had

sufficient in

data

at
as a

that

stage

of astronomical
not

science

him justify

asserting it

fact, it is

easy

to

decide.

CHAPTER
EXAMPLE AND

VII.
ANALOGY.

Example
Value and

"

Socratic of

Induction
"

"

Dangers
"

of

Socratic of

Induction"

Example

Analogy

Weakness

Analogies

Analogy

Metaphor.

WE

have

somewhat

outstepped
our

the

strict limits but it

was

of

Formal
necessary

Logic
to

in

last
in order

chapter,
that
we

do

so,

might
Induc

do

justice to
tion and
now

the

services
out

rendered

by
in

Material

point
to

its true
of and

place
argument
which

return

forms

logical

text-books

are

philosophy. We recognized by all closely akin to

Induction.
i.

EXAMPLE.
ex

"

Example
a

(TrapaSeiypa, exemplum,
form
of

argumentnm

is paritate),
one or more

argument
instances

that
to to

proceeds
a some

from

individual

general law,
further

and

then

applies

the

general
It

law
most

individual
form

instance.

is the

limited

possible
to

of material

induction,
result of

with the

syllogism appended
duction
1

applying

the

in

particularcase.1
by
Aristotle
a as

It is defined

proving the major of the middle by a

which been it is not worded of very
a

term

resembling the minor,

it with Induction.

definition
to

easy
view

to to

understand, but which

contrast

appears

have

with

The

meaning
refer

Aristotle's

definition

is

explained in Mansel's

Aldricb, Appendix,
we

note

H,

"

On

Example

and

Analogy,"

to

which

would

our

readers.

SOC

RATIO

INDUCTION.

403

For hotel
a

instance, I
in Paris where

happen
I

to

be the him

staying
not

in

an

make I find

acquaintance of only
most
an

Russian

gentleman.
and

courteous

kind, but
His
on

full of information talents

me

and

excellent such
argue
an as

linguist.
follows

in this that I

respect

make

impression
:

unconsciously

M. M.
/.

is Nicolaieff is Nicolaieff

a
a

good

scholar

Riissian

linguist ; gentleman ;
and

and

A II Russian But I do I

gentlemenare good scholars

not

linguists.
after

stop here.
at at
or a once

Some

little time another

wards

encounter

Berlin
I

Russian

gentleman,
the that he
too

and

jump

conclusion,
is

at
man

all events of wide

to instinctively to the expectation, knowledge, and well

versed

in modern

languages.
it will
run

If I put my thus
:

argument

into

form syllogistic

All Russian M.
.*.

gentlemen are good scholars

is is
a a

and

linguists;

Smolenski Smolenski first

to

M. my

gentleman; good scholar and linguist.

Russian

If

limited number

M.

acquaintance at Paris Nicolaieff only, but has

his

has

not

been
to
a

extended
and

of

friends, cultivated himself, then

to

gentlemen
which

like

my

first

scholarly by argument
be the
same

I ascend

the

universal

will not

It will have a rapid leap from a single instance. degree of probability higher in proportion to the

number and

of instances
have
a

from
more

which

am

able

to

argue,

I shall

reasonable
the further

ground
instance

for my
or

conclusion
stances

respecting
I may

in

that

encounter.

404

EXAMPLE

AND

ANALOGY.

When
number It
.was

the

argument
which all kinds
can

thus
a

proceeds
Socratic

from

of instances the
to

it is called

Induction.

method prove

Socrates

em continually

ployed
false.
extreme

of
a

conclusions
better notion

true

or

Nothing danger

give

of

the

few plausible a arguing from the ingenious employment instances than of it by the Athenian philosopher. We will take an instance from the First Book of the Republic.1 He is seeking denned to disparage justice as by his opponents,
and
"

of

argues

as

follows who
can

Is not

he

best strike any best able

kind
to

of blow,
any

whether kind
"

righting or

boxing,

ward

of blow.

Certainly.
And he

"

who

can one

prevent
?

or

elude

disease

is

best able to create

"

True. And

"

he is the
a

best

guard
upon

of

position who
?

is

best able to steal

"

march

the enemy

Certainly.
Then
a

"

he

who
"

is

good keeper

of

anything

is

also
"

good
That,
at

thief?

I suppose,

is to be
man

inferred."

"Then

if the

just

is
"

good

at

keeping, he

is

good
" "

stealingmoney
the argument

So

declares."
has turned
out to be
a

Then, the justman

thief."

are

of argument Example is a method constantlyemploying, and are too

"

that
often

we

all of misled
aoi.)

us

by

Plat.

Rep.. Bk.

I.

(Jowett'stranslation, Vol.

III. p.

VALUE

OF

EXAMPLE.

405

it. Of all fallacies the commonest

to
an

is that

of

hurrying
or more some

unfounded
of in of

conclusion

from

one

instances,or
circumstance
the

arguing
one

from

the existence
of
a

of

instance
same

phenomenon
infant
a man

to

existence

the

circumstance
The
on

in another who

instance
out

presented
the
window
coat

to

us.

looks
pass

of
a

and

seeing
cries because

by
the

in
too
a

black credulous

and

hat

out,

Dadda

!;

invalid,who,
patent
to

he has

swallowed

box

of

pills and
the of
or

afterwards

recovered,

attributes condemns because

a

his all

recovery

ministers
on one

pills cynic who ; the religion as insincere,

occasions
to met

he

has

two

with

clergyman
traveller

who
who

did

not

live up the

his

profession;

the

denounces

country, because

he
;

has the luck

passing
who their
or

visit

there

dishonesty of a been cheated once during a of all kinds, superstitious

to

attribute

good

horseshoes

nailed
seen a

over

door,

or

ill-luck to
a

their ladder

having
;

magpie
and
ten

walked
more

beneath
are

all

these

thousand
Induction. handful often that

fallacies of

They
of

leap

from
to
a

Example or Imperfect a single instance, or a

universal

instances,

conclusion,

forgetting or
are

fatal to
are

leaving out of sight the cases their too hasty generalization.

never cases

But this itself

there

in which process

we

can

follow satisfies
or

convenient

and

rapid

which from
Must process
we one we

law respecting a universal ? instances casually encountered laborious the painful and pursue tion
even

two

always
Indueassert

of
can

and

its elaborate
of probability

methods the

before

the

universal

law

We

shall

406

EXAMPLE

AND

ANALOGY.

subject when we come to the question of hypothesis. The rapid generali within zation, so dangerous to all, is nevertheless
a

have

word

to

say

on

this

its

own

proper

limits

most

invaluable
To

instrument
make

of scientific research discover.es

there
are

and of

discovery.
a

such

is
some

one

the

prerogatives
sort

of of

genius ;
natural

who
power

possess

instinct, an
laws under

inborn the
so

detecting single instance, or under

that

of

the
a

general
number

of instances
to

small

they

would
men

reveal

nothing
their
sort

the

ordinary by
what

observer.

Such Liberatore

obtain calls
a

results keen

Father

of
and

scent

that enables

reason

to

track

its prey,

that is not
as a

acquired by teaching,but given by nature have of men to follow the gift.1 But the mass
safe
as so

steady and employing

sets

path

of observation the methods

and

experiment,
that
Mr.

their

guides
no

Mill

forth
But

has
an

clearly. Example
opponent
?

logicalforce, no
Yes
; it at two

power

to

compel
that
stances

least proves

this,

the

two
common

qualitiesin question,the
to

circum incom both

at
as

each

of the that A
that

cases

are

not
are are

patible.
A is Y, /.

When
B is and

I argue

and and

B Y

X,

Y,
B

I show I
am

least
my

compatible,
conclusion
if I
meet

justifiedin drawing
but and B may find be him

not
a

is Y,

Y.
a

Thus

Londoner

vulgar,
laws of

impudent fellow, I very much overstep reasoning if I conclude that all Londoners
1
"

the
are

vulgar

Obtinetur

non praeceptis

(haec notitia) olfactu quasi traditur a acquiritur sed dono

venaticae natura."

rationis, qui

(Liberatorer

Inst.Phil..

I.gi.)

ANALOGY.

407

and my
are

only inference I observation is that cockneydom not incompatible.

2.

impudent.

The

can

draw

from

and

vulgarity

ANALOGY. indeed

"

and

it is

between argues in the another

argue

them. from
same one

Analogy is clearlyakin to Example, not always possible to distinguish But properly speaking, Example
instance
to

another from

similar
one

instance
to

order:

Analogy
in
one a

instance
order.

similar from
to

instance fact that fact that the

same

different

If I
to

the the
to

man's

body
of
I
some am

is liable

disease is

the

exposed
to

body malady,
from

other

man

Example. body
the mind,
difference absolute
an

But

if I argue
to
a

the

arguing from of the liability

the
or

disease
I
am

similar from

on liability

part of put the

arguing
another

Analogy

to

in

way,

identityin some identityof ratios. be Example may

:

from an Example argues Analogy from particular,

stated

mathematically
;

as

follows

A AM

and

are

both X

Y;
is Y.

B Therefore

Analogy

will have A A
:

different
M
::

formula
N

is Y

Therefore B

is Y.
an

Angels and men, identityin this, that

God. argue If from

for instance, have

absolute

they

are

creatures
common

of

Almighty
to

this characteristic
men are

both

that

because

dependent

upon

God,

408

EXAMPLE

AND

ANALOGY.

so

are

angels also,
argument
Men and
are

am

arguing
thus

from
:

Example,

and

my

may

be stated

Men
/.

angelsarc alike creatures of God dependenton their Creator ;

are

Angels

also

dependenton

their Creator.

prcportional the spiritual world a subordination to the archangels, which corresponds has a certain proportion to the subordination to and of priests to their bishops. If I therefore argue that because to obey his bishop in a priestis bound of the matters pertaining to his office, so is one lower to angels bound obey an archangel, I am I am not arguing arguing from Analogy, because
have angels and men in that angels have in identity, But

also

from

common

fact but
my
:

common

relation
:

or

pro

portion,and
Priests

argument

will be

Bishops :: Angels : Archangels; bound Priests are to obey their Bishops; Angels are bound to obey Archangels. Therefore
If

Example
weakness

is prone
to

to

mislead,
of
to

much

more

is tht,
order

Analogy.
further
of

It adds

the
a

weakness

Example
another

of

transference
be

things, which
laws.

different

physical
monotonous

world

governed by altogether If a man points out that in the beauty implies variety, and that a
may is

uniformity
loveliness ; and

destructive
then goes
on

of
to

all

true

grace

and

deduce

premiss the beauty of a divergence in religiousbeliefs,representing the countless varieties

from this
of

Protestantism
belief

as

more

attractive
Catholic

than
we

the

uni

formity of

in the

Church,

answer

410

EXAMPLE

AND

ANALOGY.

Or
"

the
We

preacher
sometimes
to

may
see cross

employ metaphor
a

and
a

say:

herd
to

of

deer

at

river's

brink, longing
lie

the

rich

pastures which
into the stream.
nobler

beyond it,but fearing to plunge But when at length one larger and
shakes the his

than

the

rest

branching antlers,as
and

if in defiance
the

of

danger,
herd
and take

timid monarch
who

leads the way, fearlessly and confidence boldly follow

we see some

their

their leader,so the

great Saint

boldly encounters frighten ordinary men,

example, others hardship and

would the who "c.
never

dangers that and emboldened by his of into the painful waters venture self-sacrifice which without it they
trials and dared
to

have

enter,

and

thus

reach

rich
are

pastures

of

holiness
and
to

reserved

for those for God,"

:

willing to
we

suffer
an

labour from

Here

have

argument

Analogy

Deer Deer

and

men

are

both

prone

to

attain to richer material leader

to superior

follow a leader ; pasturesbyfollowinga

;

themselves

,'. Men

may

reach noble

the

spiritual pastures by imitating who are example of men spiritually

themselves.

richer

to superior

If the

object
to
or

of Induction the
mass an

is to
men

persuade
rather much
more

and
to

make
con

things clear
vince the
an case

of

than

enforce with both

argument,
and

is this

Example

apposite
a

illustration

have

greater iniluence
arguments,

Analogy. Sometimes or judicious metaphor will than the most logical of

wUl convince

deductive

and

the

intel-

ANALOGY

AND

METAPHOR.

411

lect
are

through
Has

the
on

medium the
any

of the

will.

But

here

we

encroaching Analogy
to
an as

field of Rhetoric.
As
a an

answer

strictly logicalforce ? has objector, it sometimes

strict Laws of

real

value and

such
approve.

the

Thought

recognize
immoral

If lives

non-Catholic
some

urges
or

the

indifferent
as
an

or

of

Prelates truth

Popes

argument Iscariot,
no our

against the
answer

of the Catholic
to

Church, the obvious

is to
to

point
the

the

evil life of that

Judas
was

and
ment
or

remind

objector
of the
the the of

this

argu

against the
the would

truth

doctrine

of

Lord,
The
out

authority

argument
in

take
:

Apostolic College. following shape drawn

form syllogistic The

contrast

between did

the
not

and belief

the

practice oj

Judas
But

Iscariot be

prove the doctrine he pro

the relation
or

fessedto Judas

false ;
had
same

Iscariot

to

the

of Christ Apostles

that any be
at

Prelate

Pope, whose
his

practiceshould
would
/.

variance

with the

belief,

have

to the

The

contrast

between
or

of followers and the belief

is
no

Apostles ; the practice of any against the

Prelate

Pope

argument

teachingof the Catholic Church.

In
ment

this

case on

the the

logical
the

force

of
that
was

the
the

argu

depends
of of Prelate of the

admission

posi
to

tion that

Judas amongst
a or

Apostles
of evil this

similar

Pope
from

life amongst

the
con

followers

Apostles, and

clusion

that follows

it will be

granted, the granted also.

CHAPTER
THE MATTER

VIII.
OF
THE

ON

SYLLOGISM.

Matter

of

the
"

Syllogism

"

Demonstrative
"

Syllogisms"
Science and

Probable Moral
Demon
"

Syllogisms
Certitude stration
"
"

Sophisms

Metaphysical, Physical,
and
Error
"

and

Opinion, Doubt,

Physical Science" Certainty, and Probability,

"

Various Certitude"

kinds

of Demonstration

Converging
Cumulative

Probaoilities and

Weakness

of

Probable

Arguments

Chain

Evidence.

WE
one

have of

already said Formal Logic,

what the
word

that
and

our

present treatise
if
we

is

that

limit
we

Formal shall be

Logic

to

strictly means,
of the
But

obliged to admit
tion
is

that

the matter

Syllogism lies
a

completely outside
one

its

sphere.
be and the

such
to

restric
con

that

cannot

adhered
name

without

siderable
in
to

inconvenience,

of Formalism

its most
any

uncomplimentary
to

sense

rightly belongs
our

attempt

exclude of the

from
matter

treatise of
our

all

possible considerations
ments.

argu

Thus

we

cannot

grasp

the

difference without
at

between least
a

Ancient
short

and

Modern

Induction of the function

consideration
If in the

material of

side of Reason
to

ing.
mind
over

Logic taking cognizance of Truth, we

difference vary in between
not

it is the

direct
cannot

the
pass

various the

kinds

of

syllo

gisms,

which but

in

legitimacy of their
of their

inference

the

character

premisses.

DEMONSTRATION.

413

Among
follows

forms

of

argument
their

in which

the
some

conclusion
we can

from logically with

we no

premisses,

accept
to

firm
can

and

others

perhaps
variation h. Barbara results When

assent

unhesitatingconfidence, while only yield a qualified assent, or This is not at all. owing to any
may

in their
or

form, all
other

be

alike

syllogisms
It

any

legitimate form.
of the
are

simply
the
'

from

the the

nature

premisses.
certain,
we

premisses
called the kinds called

have
and

king

of

reasoning
is
two

Demonstration,

the

syllogism

Demonstrative
:

Syllogism ;

of this there

are

I. DEMONSTRATIVE
When

SYLLOGISMS.

"

(a)

: priori

the

necessitated Demonstration it is said

A II All
,'.

premisses are by the very

a

certain and are absolutely have of things, we nature the syllogismexpressing and priori, e.g.,

to

be

demonstrative, absolutely

All

isosceles ; are equiangulartriangles have the anglesat the base equal; isosceles triangles have the angles at the base equiangular triangles

equal.
: When (6) A posteriori

the
are

or as

morally certain, and

the

premisses are physically necessarily true as long

goes the
on

present order
nature
a

of
man

nature

undisturbed,
we

and

the

of

remains

same,

have is

Demonstration
said
to

be

such and a syllogism posteriori, not absolutelydemon only conditionally

strative,e.g. (l) Major premiss physically certain:

4X4

MATTER

OF

THE

SYLLOGISM.

A II fruit-trees flower; The

.*.

banana banana

is

fruit-tree ;

The

flowers.
:

(2) Major premiss morally certain

What
is vouched

for by

all travellers to China

is

The

fact; geographical existence of Pekin is vouched for by all

China
;

travellers to

.*.

The

existence

of Pekin

is

geographical fact.
When the

II. PROBABLE
are we

SYLLOGISMS. but

"

premisses

not

have
is

gism

less probable, then or only more only a probable argument, and the syllo said to be a Probable as Syllogism,

certain

Wicked Nero
.'.
was was

men a

are

unhappy ;
man;

wicked

Nero

unhappy.

All

/.

phenomena of light are explained by the undulatorytheory ; The colouring River is a of the woods on the Hudson ; phenomenon of light River is The colouring of the woods on the Hudson by the undulatorytheoryof light. explained
III. SOPHISMS.
"

the

When

the

premisses
is

are

such

that from however

a

them

false conclusion

drawn, without

defect

violating the rules in our reasoning

of the
is

Syllogism, such called a Fallacy or

Sophism.1
1

This

strict often

meaning
used
to

of

the

words both

Fallacy is

include

always adhered sophism and paralogism.

is not

to

CERTITUDE.

4x3

All form.
to

sophisms
When what the

are

based

on

the

matter

not
we

on are

the said

defect

lies in the
a

form
an

have in
not

is called
a

Paralogism,
which is

argument apparent

false and

form,
real.

syllogism

only

Before

we

consider

these

various

kinds

of

Syllo

gisms
mind

we

must

which

briefly explain the various states of they severally produce, leaving the fuller
of these deals with
to

consideration series which

the

volume

of

our

present
Human

the First

Principlesof

Knowledge.
I.

When

an

argument
are

is

rightly drawn
state

from mind
as

premisses
produced firm
assent

which is
to

certain, the
may

of

Certitude, which
some

be

defined any

object of knowledge without

can

fear

ofgoing
But

wrong.
as

the

premisses

be

certain moral

with

absolute
so

(or metaphysical),physical, or
the certitude

Certainty,
(or
meta

they produce

will be
We

absolute
are

physical or physical),
absolute

moral.

certain

with

four. We certaintythat two and two make with certain are physical certainty that the stone which I throw upwards will fall again to earth. We moral with certain certainty that Julius Caesar are
was

the
In

first Roman all the of the three

Emperor.
cases

there

is

complete

exclusion

true,
on a

but

possibilityof the metaphysical certainty

level the from
the Nature

opposite being
is nevertheless It is
so

different
up
not

other

two.

bound could

with

Divine with

that

God

Himseh
of the

interfere

it.

No

exercise

4 it-

MATTER

OF

TUE

SYLLOGISM.

Divine
two,
or

Omnipotence
cause

could

make

five out

of two

and

the exterior
or

less than
not create

the interior
a

to be angle of any triangle opposite angle. God could

world

in which would

the
be

theory
true,

of
or

Hegel
Kant's
neces

respecting contradictions doctrine of antinomies, or

sary

Mill's denial

of the

sciences. priori But it is very different with physical or moral is physicallycertain that an certainty. A doctor ulcerated in a day, or be healed cannot sore an ovarian tumour disappear, or sight be restored on a received sudden to eyes that have an organic lesion
a

of universality

the laws

of the

of the
worked

retina.
at

Yet

all these
and in

wonders

have is who
so

been

Lourdes,
no
man

the evidence his the

senses

indispu

table

that

it can investigates Certitude

absolute.

deny
we

facts.

Hence

carefully Physical
can

is,as
The them

have

said, only conditional, not

laws
at

Author aside He do
so

of Nature's
or

any

time
He

set

suspend
from
as

their time

operation
to

if

pleases, and
to

does
as

time lasts.

and

will continue There certitude

long
of

the world
reason

is,
about
not

moreover,

another
nature

why

our

the laws like the

is only conditional.

Being, stamped that they have so our only to be intelligence upon as once brought before us to be recognized at once They are unconditional!}'true. universallyand of observation and arrived at by a long process experiment, and are (as we have already remarked) than long expe hypotheses which nothing more in regarding as rience justifies us universallytrue. They
are

inner

laws

of

The

law

of

gravity,certain

as

it is, certain

with

all

4i8

MATTER

OF

THE

SYLLOGISM.

good and con scientious not although I am altogether free man, from a fear of the opposite,especiallywhen I read certain It is my Dialogues of Plato. opinion that Romulus the first King of Rome, was though the of him treatment as a mythical personage by some learned historians prevents from me being certain of his existence. It is my opinion that earthquake? caused are by the upheavings of the igneous contents of the earth, but I am about not sure it, and am
was a

is my

opinion

that

Socrates

ready

to

accept any
established
I have such
to

other

explanation of
men.

them

if it

shall be

by
a

scientific
dread

When do the
not

of the

opposite that
one no

I
or

venture

express my
state

myself either
of mind is

way

other, then
Doubt.

longer
whether

opinion, but
the
been
use a

For

instance, I
candles
or

doubt and
not

of gas
real

in the

place of
to

lamps
;

has

advantage
that

mankind

whether should
was

it is desirable interfere
in
to

the
;

civil government whether

In these

education

Savonarola
cases

justlyput
a

death,
to

"c.
on

great deal
cannot

be

said

both
to

sides of the either.

data
to

recognize question,
form
an

and

give my
I have

assent
no

When

sufficient
state

then opinion at all, but Ignorance. For

state

my

of mind
am

is not

Doubt,

instance, I
in

of education
New

China, of the
the
and
causes

ignorant of the of politics state

of the

in

Mexico,
in the

of

various

changes
more.

weather,

of

million

questions
from
false

3.

When

an

argument

is

drawn

premisses,or

is

wrongly

drawn

from

true

principles,

DEMONSTRATIVE

SYLLOGISMS.

419

then

the

state

of

mind be

of

him
as
a

who

accepts

it is

Error, which
the

may

defined

between discrepancy
and the

judgment formed by the mind it is formed. which Error respecting from ignorance, though it implies
ignorance
and arises from it expresses it. For the

object
of

is very the

different

presence is
some

ignorance
absence
of
are a

thing negative,

of

know

ledge,but does respecting the

whereas
error

not

imply

the formation which further

a we

judgment ignorant ;
a

matter

of

implies
that have of

the

step of forming
one.
:

judgment,
Hence

and
we

judgment
three
we

mistaken of
mind

states

Certitude^
Demon

the

offspring

what

have

called

the

strative and

Syllogism, Opinion of the Probable of the Sophistical Error Syllogism.

must
now

Syllogism,
of

We

return

to

our

consideration

these

various

kinds

of

Syllogisms.
SYLLOGISMS. A

I. DEMONSTRATIVE which

"

Syllogism
by
the way

produces
We

Certitude
are

proceeds
with

of
:

Demonstration.
"I
can can

all familiar

phrase
means,

prove prove

this to this from

demonstration,"

which

and

which

no

man

can

are premisses which reasonably doubt.

certain,

Demonstration

therefore
the conclusion

may is

be

defined

as

an

argument
form
matter.

in which

drawn logically
not

from
in imme its

known premisses from

to be

certain. modes it

It does

differ in its
but

all other
Moreover

of

argument,

always proceeds
from

either

diately or
which
no

mediately
from is

demonstration,

proof

premisses incapable of self-evident propositions of it proceeds possible, whether

420

M.

\TTER

OF

TUK

SYLLOGISM.

downwards individual
The be
at

from facts.

First

or Principles,

upwards from
may

end
as

of demonstration
a

is Science, which

defined

certain

knowledge of
It deals

the truth, arrived

by

demonstration.

with

conclusions,
those
are

not

with
are

principles from which ultimately derived, since we

First

the

conclusions
to

said
have
a

appre
that
one

hend

Principlesrather

than

to

scientific
us

does not teach Science knowledge of them. thing are equal things equal to the same have a another, or that every effect must

to

cause.

First
to

Principles are
human

more

certain
the

and

better

known drawn

the

intellect than
our

conclusions
is

from
our

them, since

knowledge of them

immediate,

knowledge of conclusions only mediate. Science, properly speaking, is in its highest

a

sense

knowledge by
are reason

of

things that
of their
and
sense are
"

are

metaphysi
nature, of

cally certain things that

otherwise.
a

inner

necessary in
a

cannot

possibly be
is used of

But

wider

science

knowledge of things that morally certain, the truth

not
on

of
nature

depends,
the laws
at

the
moral

inner laws

or only physically which knowledge of things,but on

physicalor
which

that

govern

the

world,

all
two

and

by Almighty God His good pleasure. Thus, the knowledge that the angles of a triangle are together equal to right angles,is scientific knowledge in the strict the but knowledge that the accurate sense, might
be reversed

flame hand

of the
into

candle

will burn

me

if I

thrust

my

it,is scientific knowledge in the wider

sense

and

less accurate

of the term.

PHYSICAL

SCIENCE.

421

Each

of

these

propositions
from
are one

is

the

conclusion
case

from

general proposition.
is deduced
a

In the

former

the

conclusion

mathematical
to
one

axiom,
the latter
same case

viz.,

Things which thing are equal to

from
an

"

equal

and the
upon

another,"

in

posteriori proposition experiment,

the it is
and

based

observa

tion To

and
reverse

only physically certain.

law the
and power

former

the

consequence Himself the

flowing from
in the action from has

beyond
of

of God To

present
of the

order

things.
the the

prevent

latter law

and

consequence
power

flowing
God,
but

it,is

not

only

within done

of

it

repeatedly been
or

by
His

Him

in favour

of

His

servants,
This

to

manifest
a

power.

respecting the passing remark science is strange perversion of language by which confined to physicalscience, and by modern usage which is concerned with what to that scientific only the name in a secondary and deserves inferior sense.
suggests
We do
not

refuse

the

word

science deals

to that

branch

of

human
but
to

knowledge regard
of this
as

which the

with
even

nature's
as

laws,

only,or
one

the

primary

meaning
of human
to

the

word, is

the

speech which degradation of

bears the

degradations unconscious testimony

minds modern that frame the

of those

is,with our speech. Science longer the knowledge of Divine

scientists, no

things,no
and the is search the

longer the
part
the of after

acquaintance
of human and

with

the immortal
no

immaterial

nature,

longer
It

eternal

immutable.

knowledge
the into

things corruptible,the
matter

doomed

to

acquaintance with perish, the research

brute

the

425

MATTER

OF

THE

SYLLOGISM.

phenomena earth is capable. Science being

stration divisions various
I.

various

of

which

the

dirt and

dust

of

the

end

arrived

at

by

demon

and

the

demonstrative

syllogism,we corresponding
to

have the

of
uses

Demonstration of the

wori
a

Science.

Demonstration

to

from particulars, from them, following Demonstration

a

proceeds from universals priori to the conclusions first principles

from
causes

to

effects.

proceeds posteriori

from

parti

culars
to

to

the universal, from

the results of

principles

the

themselves, from effects to causes. principles the immutability of God from Thus, if I argue
I eternity,
:

to

His
as

argue

and priori,

my

syllogism

is

follows

All God
.'.

immutable

thingsare is immutable,

eternal,

God

is eternal. from of the

But

if I

argue

dependent

and

contin

gent character

things created, to the existence of an independent and necessary Being, who is their and Creator, I am syllogism arguing a posteriori, my
:

will be
All

All
.*. All

contingent imply the things dependent and existence of a Being on whom theydepend, and contingent, created things are dependent created thingsimply the existence of a Being on
whom

theydepend,
argument
cause.

where

my

proceeds

from

the

effects

to

their efficient

VARIOUS

KINDS

OF

DEMONSTRATION.

423

2.

Demonstration

is

also

pure, empirical,and

mixed. Pure

Demonstration
a

is from

premisses,

both

of

which

in Mathematics. as priori, Empirical Demonstration is from

are are a

premisses, both
and

of which

posteriori, as
is said
to

in

Chemistry
be mixed

the

physical sciences.
Demonstration
Minor order
asserts to

when

the

premiss applies
what of the the

the

real

major

premiss

ideal, e.g.,

All

have straight plane triangles lines for their sides, is has in

a

ABC
.*.

plane triangle,
lines for straight of fact AB,

ABC

its sides,

where them

point

AC,

BC,

are

none

of

the carefully Nevertheless the mind trianglebe drawn. forming itself the idea of a plane triangleand the idea to of a straight line from the imperfect representa tions of them, rightly judges respecting ABC what it

either

straight or

lines, however

is, strictlyspeaking, only

Demonstration

true

of

the

ideal

copies.
3. is also direct and
we

indirect.
our

In Direct
to

Demonstration

show

conclusions

be In

true

by positivearguments.
Demonstration
true
we

Indirect
to

show the

our

con

clusions
every

be

by showing
This

absurdity
is also

of

other

alternative. absurdum.
an

latter

called

reductio ad We

have

instance

of the former

in

the

larre

424

MATTER

OF

THE

SYLLOGISM.

of propositions of Euclid; of the latter in mr.jority those he begins, If it be propositions in which let,""c. possible, Indirect Demonstration is always inferior to direct. It does lead the mind not straight to its mark leave it so fully but takes it by a or satisfied, is always a latent fear lest roundabout There way. there may weak be some point in the conditional premisses which give the various alternatives ; and further possi we suspect either that there is some else that one or bilitybeside those enumerated,
"

or

other

of those

adduced
to

does

not

lead may

to
not

the
be

absurdity attributed
exclusive
4. and

it,or
is also

that

they

of

one

another. divided into absolute

Demonstration

relative.
Absolute

Demonstration
in themselves.

proceeds

from

premisses

that

are

true

Relative which
are

Demonstration

agreed
not

upon

proceeds from premises between myself and my

into consideration I prove
own

adversary, without

taking
;
as

whether

they
be

are

true

or

when
his

wrong

by assuming
him from them

scepticto premisses, and

with

the

showing
himself.

how

he is at variance

II. PROBABLE
tive

SYLLOGISMS.

"

As

the

Demonstra

Syllogism leads to certainty,so the Probable remarks Syllogism leads to opinion. St. Thomas1 have their that the reason operations of human
counterpart
in the
1

processes
Lect.

of nature.

There

are

i. in Post. Anal.

426

MATTER

OF

THE

SYLLOGISM.

But however conformity to truth. high the degree of probability attained mind be cannot to, the said to have scientific knowledge so long as it does not pass beyond the probable, since in all pro babilitythere is a certain dread of the alternative

opposite to
Truth
number does

that towards
not

which in

we

ourselves combination
a

incline. of
a

consist

the

or probabilities, certaintyof probable opinions all tending to the same

of

number

of

point.

Nevertheless
we

we

must

be

on

our

guard here lest

together certitude and certainty. It is that certaintycan consist of probabilities true never united together, but certitude be produced in may the mind by the effect of such a union of proba bilities. Certainty is something objective, and is
concerned

confuse

with Certitude of mind

the
is

nature

of the

proposition
the
propo

in

itself. the state sition

in its

and subjective,

is concerned

with

of

one

before when

whom

is

placed. Now favour a large

effect upon
a

any

number

of

proposition has converging proba

of any reasonable
He is

the bilities,
man

the mind
real

is to

produce
"

kind

of certitude.

morally certain that the proposition is true, using in its proper the phrase and true morally certain lest the as meaning that he has no dread sense, of contradictory be true, as long as the nature
"

man

remains
An

what

it is.
my

example
a

will make Zealand

meaning
the

clearer.

see

in

New

paper

announcement

of
an

the

death

of

man

whose
and
one,

name

is that of of my but
own.

old The that

University friend
name

companion
it is true,

is

common

I know

CERTITUDE

AND

CERTAINTY.

427

my
went.

friend
I

emigrated, though I never whether begin to wonder

is dead.
A

heard it is afterwards

where

he

reallymy
I meet

friend who
a

few of
a

days
both

mutual he has

acquaintance just received

of us, who

tells

me

that
so

letter

stating that suddenly

of
no

so-and-

Not

(mentioning my long afterwards

to

friend) died
I pass
and
a

abroad. the
man

brother

reported
band brother

be

dead
to

observe
that
as

(I have
he has be these
a

oppor

tunityof speaking
round
or

him)

mourningworn sources more

his

hat, such
Now
not

would of

for

sister.
does

each

of than
may
same

information

probability.
have
name

It

is

very

give anything possible that

another mention The
may
man

there of the chance

been
as

in New
my

Zealand
to

friend, not
newspaper.

the

of

mistake
our

in the

report that reached

be be
a

mutual my

acquaintance
brother
Yet I

mistaken

one,

and
some

friend's other is

may
I

in

mourning
that such

for
my

relative.
and

feel that would

certain
under

friend
cumstances

dead,
any

think
man

cir

ordinary

feel

sufficiently
action
de

certain

to
on

take the

pended
of

practicalaction, report being true.

if such The

combination
the

probabilitiesproduces certitude, not

absolute

highest

certitude, not
It does
not

certitude, but moral

a

certitude. of

merely produce
I

high degree

proba
would

bility.
In allow the that
same a

way,

suppose
not to

every declare of

one a

jury ought they

out
are

prisoner
his

guilty, unless
Yet in nine
cases

quite
ten
even

certain evidence

guilt.
of

of

the

consists
not

probabilities,and

that

where

it is

only

428

MATTER

OF

THE

SYLLOGISM.

circumstantial

but violence.

direct. The

man

is
swears

tried
to

for his

robbery

and

prosecutor

he is found in his with purse and identity, money with several convictions possession,and he is a man recorded those circumstances Under against him. what not convict, and rightlyso ? Yet jury would the prosecutor
may have had may up

have

made

mistake, the thief

street,
and
as
or

picked
a

the purse
purse
a

in the
own,

may his

have

similar

of his very

to

character, this
his

affords

feeble

presumption

of

Yet the com particularoccasion. bination of probabilities of produces, on the mind jury and judge alike, a sufficient certitude to make them suffi certain of the prisoner'sguilt, perfectly certain ciently need
to

guilton

this

pronounce

him

guiltywithout

any

of deliberation. What
should and
as we

say to
man

was

over

the
to

juror who, condemned,

a

after the trial

were worse on

to

feel

scruples
who
were

the
starve

verdict
out

passed,
other

ov

still,
the is

to

the

eleven the

ground that innocent, and

doubt what

it is still
he

possible that ought to have the

answer

prisoner
was

benefit

of the

? is

We

should
an

him

that his doubt doubt

;

called

imprudent
the
not

that
was

it is
a

possible that absolutely mistake, but that it is

we

whole

matter

take

into

account

the
a

morally possible,when of ordinary credibility

man once

witnesses, the tendency of

commit that
own can some

convicted

to

other

crime, and
on a

the

general
no

reliance of his

be

placed
;
so

man's
we can

identification
have

property
are

that

reasonable

doubt, and

guilt. morally certain of the prisoner's

WEAKNESS

OF

PROBABLE

ARGUMENTS.

429

To
in which

return
one

to
or

the other
a

Probable of the

Syllogism. premisses
The is
a

It is

one

general
argues the the

not probability,

certain

fact.

orator

for the Probable

most

part from

Probable is almost is

Syllogisms,and
identical with

Syllogism
from

Rhetorical tells
us,

Syllogism,

which

drawn,

as

Aristotle

and things which an are probabilities indication /cal cr^/xetW). of the conclusion (e" CLKOTCOV of have under the head We already spoken of of the the general coincidence Enthymeme Rhetorical Syllogism and the Enthymeme, and of the frequent coincidence of the Probable Syllogism The three in fact form a sort Enthymeme. of happy trio who are rarelyseparated, and, though of his own, each has a separate pied-a-terre yet they and the
are

usually found
The
same

united

into

one.

degree of probabilityof
as

the

conclusion

is

exactly the
But

that

of
are

the

when

both

premisses
weakness

probable premiss. probable, it represents

both. Thus
in

the

combined

of

the

syllogism,
Most This
.'.

Hindoos
man
man

are

courteous,

This

probablya Hindoo, is probablycourteous,

is

probabilityof his displaying the courtesy of the If, for instance, is comparatively small. Hindoo of four, and out Hindoos are polite in three cases is three of this man the chance being a Hindoo unlikelythan likely it is more to two, nevertheless
the that
we

shall find

in
are

him
more

the

we politeness

desire.

Few

dangers

fatal to

sound

reasoning

430

MATTER

OF

THE

SYLLOGiSM.

than
A

assumption of probable premisses as certain. few probable premisses in the course of an argu
may render the final conclusion
a

the

ment

very

improbable

for granted I take long argument six times has in its two to one over a premiss that favour, the weight of evidence against my final con
indeed.

If in

clusion

will be

nearlyten
we

to
a

one.

Sometimes

have

number In

of this

premisses
case

thii?,
con

depending
clusion them. There the
man

on

one

another. combined
man

the

represents the
For

weakness is accused

of all of of murder.

instance, a

is very

strong evidence

that

man

just like
murdered

in the company prisoner was the night when the murder on certain

of the
was

committed.
was

It is also almost
to

that the

man

who There

known

be

in his company
a

did the deed.

is,more
deceased
on

over,

strong
counsel
an

presumption against the theory urged

for the

by the
made

defence, that
on

the

unprovoked the night in question

in
self-defence. But be accused

attack and
met

his

companion
from that
For

his death
not

him

it does

follow

the

should

convicted the
to

of murder.

if the

probabilityof each of ing to guilt is three babilityis nevertheless

of their
it is
more

three
one,

circumstances the
balance

point
of pro
in favour

rather

against than
this
was

being all of them that the likely

was

true, and
accused

means

that
than

innocent

that he
This

guilty.
of argument
two

kind

is sometimes
which govern than

called Chain it.

its weakest

evidence.
I.

It has chain

laws
never

The

is

stronger
is
never

the conclusion link, i.e.,

stronger than

CHAIN

EVIDENCE.

the

weakest in

of the

the

premisses.
series
save

All

the

pro be

positions

one

may

absolutely
conclusion which

certain,
is has
not
a

but

nevertheless vvhit

the than

final the

stronger
of weakness. the
Even

one

in

it

signs
represents

2.

The weakness each moral

conclusion of of the all the

combined

premisses. premisses approaching

though
have
a

probable

may
to

probability
if

certainty,
conclusion

nevertheless,
may be very

they

are

many, indeed.

the

improbable
must

Chain from instances

evidence

be

carefully
of which the

distinguished
we

circumstantial above.

evidence,
In

gave

two

the

latter,

conclusion the of

represents
bined weakness

the

combined of the
and

strength,
premisses.
their moral have united

not

com

Each combined certitude. low

them

strengthens
may may

the such taken

but

rest,
as

strength

be when

to

justify

They
degree
afford
to

separately
when

even

of

probability,
incontrovertible

together
conclusion

may

an

proof

of

the

which

they

point,

CHAPTER

IX.

ON

FALLACIES.

Formal

and
"

Material

Fallacies.
"

"

I. Fallacies of

of

Language
"

"

Equivo

cation and II.

Amphibology
"

Fallacies of

Metaphor
"

Composition

Division Fallacies
"

Fallacies outside

Frequency
tion
"

Fallacy of
of
"

Scepticism Fallacy of Accent Its Language Fallacy of Accident Evading the Ques Special Conditions
"

"

"

Instances ad

Evasion

"

Argumentum
ad

ad

hominem
"

"

Arguof

mentum

populum Argumentrim Causation Inference Faulty Begging the Question in a Circle Fallacy of Questions.
"

verecundiam

Fallacies
"

"

Arguing

"

WE
our

aie

now

approaching
we

the

end

of

our

task.

In

last

chapter

of sphere of Formal discussed Demonstrative and the Syllogism, and we Probable Syllogisms. We glanced at the various kinds of Certitude, explained the strict meaning of

stepped a little outside of Logic to speak of the matter

the

Opinion
the
can

and

Doubt,
kinds
at

and

Error.

We

then
and

explained
how
we

various

of

Demonstration,

only
We

arrive

scientific

knowledge

through

the

medium

of Demonstration.

have
more

to
common
we

discuss

in

our

present chapter
of Error. of the Laws of

some

of the

sources

Whenever
or

neglect any

Thought,

in our which principles ought to be observed reasoning processes, the defect is called a Fallacy. flaw in is generally applied to such The term a

of the

434

ON

FALLACIES.

being
or

used
one

in

different

sense

in the two
and

premisses,
respec of

in

of the
in the

premisses

conclusion

or tively, ence

things spoken of, points

or

differ

being
the

overlooked

points of agreement
it lies in

ignored.
to

Where

fallacylies
is said

in the words,

it is said

be

in the diction

(in dictione); when

to

the

things
(extra

spoken of, it dictionim).

be

outside

the diction

I. FALLACIES
Hone
i. or

OF

LANGUAGE.
are

"

Fallacies

in

die:

in the

language
of

divided

into six classes

the
same

Fallacies
in
a

when Equivocation,
sense

word

is used

different

in different

parts
as

of the
these

argument,
senses
were

which,
the same,

however,
as,

proceeds

if

He

who

is outside

the Church

of Christ

cannot

be

saved,
All
who hold
any

heretical

doctrine

ate

outside

the

Church
.'.

of Christ,
hold
any

None
I

who

heretical doctrine in which

can

be saved,

where

am

using Church
Church,

the

major

premiss

for the soul of the

are

consists

of all who

Jesus Christ by faith and charity,and in the minor premiss for the body of the Church, the external are i.e., body consisting of those who
united
to

united
upon

by

one

Faith

under

the

Vicar

of

Jesus Christ

earth.

Again,
// is

impossibleto

be

in

two

places at

the

same

time.

EQUIVOCATION

435

There

is

story of St. Philip that he

the
same

was

in

two

placesat
,'.

time,
was

There

is

story of St. Philip that he did what

impossible.
This
but what lieve

argument

is well
I
use

enough

as

far

as

it goes,
sense

if in the conclusion
cannot

in the impossible possibly happen, and therefore

am

of

disbe

the

story, I
I

liable to the
used

cation, in that
the

have

the

charge of eqiiivoword impossible in

premiss for physically impossible, which in the exclude does not miracle, and a impossibility
major
conclusion miracle We
can

for
set

absolute aside.
one or

impossibility,which
two
more

no

must

give

instances

of this

frequentlyoccurring fallacy, e.g.,

is Indifference He who
a

says

high degree of virtue, all religions are equallygood

a

exhibit

.'.

He

indifference, complete who are says all religions

high degree of virtue,
indifference of the

equallygood

exhibik

where

will

or

that

conformity
absence indiffer the of
a

with
of
ence

the self

will is

of

God
as

which

implies a
with

total

treated

identical
a

of the there who

intellect,or
is
an

suspension
come

judgment
decision.
sins

where He

obligationto
man on

to

calls any

earth

Father

against

Christ's
A
.".

command,

child child

speakingto his parent calls him Father, speaking to his parent sins againstChrist's

command.

436

OAT

FALLACIES.

Here Father

the

command

of

Christ, "Call
treated
as

no

man

upon
to

earth," is

if

it

forbade

children

acknowledge
men are

their

parents.

All able
He

consistent with

themselves,
not

/.

He

changes his opinionsis himself, who changeshis opinions is not

consistent in

who

consistent with

an

able man,

where

the

major
at

opinions
in

held

together and premiss

premiss refers to the same time, while

to

the

minor

it refers

opinions

held

at

different times.

ambiguity lies not in a word, but in the sentence, the grammatical construc tion being doubtful, or the expression used admitting of different explanations.
2.

where Amphibology,

the

which justifies absence // there is no possible difficulty attendance is cruel and at Mass, the law enjoining
severe,

But

which justifies difficulty to-daythere is no possible absence from Mass, our law the

The

of the
words

Church
no

is cruel and

severe,
are
am-

where

"c., difficulty, possible

obvious

biguoas.
This
dozens
are

instance of
cases

is

an

catch,

but

there

are

occurring

every

taken

in

the

duty

of

by the sophism Bible-reading is

"

of

we day in which Amphibology. When on

established

the words

of Our

Lord,

Search

the

is weakened meaning argument words in the Epeware original are

Scriptures," the wellby the fact that the

ras

AMPHIBOLOGY.

"

Sciutamini

Scripturas,"and
of many mood. Cities When of the

that

the

context

is,in

the

opinion

scholars, in favour
the Plain
words

of this of St.
"

the

indicative
the

being Jude1

respecting
made eternal eternal

were they an example, suffering (the) punishment, of used fire," are as showing that the word

that

is used

in the

Bible

for

mere

flagration,they forget that made is, that they were an

eternal
on

the

passing con meaning probably

(or type) of
fire inflicted of

example penalty

punishment
to
:

in

the

them. Or
turn

from

sacred

to

profane, Shakespeare's
shall

words

The

Duke

yet

lives

that

Henry

subdue,

are a was man

good
were

instance
to

of constructional branded
as man a

be
"

ambiguity. parricide because

father the
was

If it

said

of

him,

This

his

killed," we

should

have did The

first to
not
mean

inquire whether
that of he

ambiguous
slain

phrase
father.

student

^Eschylus
not
a

and

will remember

instances,
of old often

few, of
to

by his Thucydides amphibology.

it,
and the
resource.

The
modern The

oracles

resorted it
a

fortune-teller atheist
on

finds

convenient

who God

justifiedhis dogmatic
by quoting
that there the is
no

and

open

attacks said that in the

words

that
as

the

fool

his heart

God,

meaning
and

Sacred cisms
are

philosopher proclaims Text by amphibology.

often result
based
on

it aloud, perverted the Riddles witti is -the

human

this

which fallacy, of

necessary

of

the

imperfections
7,

language.
i

St. Jude

438

ON

FALLACIES.

There

is

no

form

of this the

more

common

than

the

confusion

between

literal and

the

metaphorical
which indeed of When
a

meanings
sense

of

language, between
words and
some

the

straightforward meaning
easy

of the

derived

may

be discerned any
or one a

behind
takes

them.

It is very

for

who

detached their
"

passages

speech
Our the

letter to
says such
to

distort

meaning.

Lord

His
a

way,"1

accused

of extreme translated
be

the word
was

"

by Apostles, Salute no man command might by itself be until we learn from discourtesy, that what salute (acfrraa-^aOe)
"

to

avoided
the
a

was

the

making

of

acquaintances,

and

that

indicates

phrases are home," for

"

phrase is a hebraism, and conventional rapid journey.2 Many Not instances of amphibology. at instance, as a softened form of refusal ;
whole
"

or,

I do

not

know,"

as

an

equivalent for
to

I have

no

knowledge that I can Metaphor is the

to

communicate

you.

natural

resort

of all who from

desire
some

be

obscure,
who

or

to veil

their

meaning
Our Lord's Himself of

of those
to

listen to them.
was,
as

teaching
tells His

the

multitude

He

in couched disciples, they had a meaning

the

form His

parables, because
friends The

for His

which

He

desired

to

hide of the

from

enemies. Church could who

teaching
Divine
or

early
heathen

symbolic concealed, under

not

figures which
the

the

Mysteries. Those other, understood

were

had in the

the interpret, the key to one

sense

them the

in which

they

meant,
a
i

but

stranger
or no

to

the

Faith
at

them

false
x.

meaning,
5.
"

meaning

all.

St. Luke

Cf. 4 Ki"\{b iv. 29.

COMPOSITION

AND

DIVISION.

439

Prophecy, good
The
true

or

bad, often
what

veils he
means

its
;

meaning.
the he false
can

prophet knows
aims
at

prophet

employing

words
event.

which

explain according to the prophecy, Howl, ye sons

"

The
:

modern

of Brutus

the

shall lily river

be and

leave shall
a

the
run

land
down

of its
to

and captivity,
sea

the

great
may

the

red

with

blood,"

true

prediction, but
any

it is would

suspiciously vague,
furnish
a

almost

great
of it.

battle

respectable

explanation
3.

Fallacy of Compositionconsists in taking what The collectively ought to be taken separately. best practical instance of it is the delusion common
to

The

all who
some

invest German loan

or

their

money

in lotteries.
an

I receive

from
of
a

municipality
of lottery which The
a

advertisement first

State

the

prize prize

is

200,000

marks,
the Each

or

"10,000. "2,000,
is
and

second number

is

"4,000,
follow.

third

of

others

only 5 marks, and I invest in 4 shares, and eagerly look out for the drawing, having a most 'inordinate expectation that out of so four shares at least of my ought prizes one many
share
to

be

successful.

But

if I should

were

to

look the

at

the total

matter

accurately, I
of
shares

find and the

that

number

is 100,000,

total

number

prizes (even counting the lowest, which are only of a prize is chance therefore "5) is 200, and my shares, or 250 to i against each of my just 1,000 In other words, to i against the four combined. if I invested "i every year of my life in the lottery, be 5 to I against my getting a would the chance
of
penny

of my

money

back

in the

course

of 50 years

440

ON

FALLACIES.

The

source

of

this
at

delusion the
as

Composition.
in of
its collective

I look

character
I
to

Fallacy of given in prizes money a lump sum, instead

amongst
me, out
mass

is the

dividingit as
The

shares.

ought big sum

is

do

the the

total of of
I do

dazzles

crowd

hungry
not

investors
up

kept
enormous

well

of my
of
no

sight;
those

reckon and

the

who

invest

invest

again,

and

all to
once

purpose. and

after I have Perhaps, even I go on clinging to the fond wheel long before Fortune's bestows
on me

failed

again,
be

hope
turns

that it cannot
in my boon

favour, and
of
sudden

the

dangerous

riches.

involves the Fallacy ol Every hasty induction composition. opposite Fallacy of Division consists in 4. The taking separatelywhat ought to be taken collectively. is being tried for murder. There is a cumulus A man of evidence against him quite sufficient to hang half The dozen four in a men. are principal witnesses
number. and had
swore

One
to

of them the
vow

was

present
the He

*at

the

murder,
Another

identityof
vengeance. the had

accused.
was,

heard

him

moreover

apprehended
which

with

pistol
been the

still
fired.

the fatal shot

once

smoking Already
urge

from
more

than

he had
one

attempted
the

life of the deceased

to

Suppose
verdict
were

of
not
as

jurors
"

were

that

of
to

"

guilty
his

should
that

be the

returned, and

give
the

reason

each

of

witnesses the
to

admitted

of

an

testimony of explanation
accused, and
the doubt

compatible with he ought 4iat

innocence
have the

of the
benefit

of

442

ON

FALLACIES.

with

a :

string
Of
the

of

such
seven

miracles miracles
case

He

argues

as

follows
to
me

adduced,

it

seems

that

the

first (a

of

paralysis)may

be

for an explained by hysteria. It is not at all rare nystericalpatient to fancy himself paralyzed, and and anyhow the affection is one of the nerves, any sudden
nervous

shock
power

or

powerful
had
a

influence
lost.

may In

recall

the

that

been

the second
it

case, may
an

in which
be that the

tumour

suddenly disappeared,
into the cold
water

plunge

caused

almost

instantaneous The

contraction
cancer

of the had

parts
been

affected.

third, in which

sceptic explains by saying that there have been false diagnosis on the part of the a may medical man attending the patient. The fourth, in which that been needle had buried in the fleshy a part of the thumb, and had defied the attempts of
cured,
our

surgeons

to

reach
was
as a

it, suddenly appeared

on

the

surface, and
is

easily drawn
curious

out

with

the

hand, needle,

explained
had

coincidence.

The

which

been

the surface, had time

In the
on

gradually working happened to show

of the incredulous is
a our

towards its way itself for the first the

the fifth

occasion

visit to
friend

fountain. that

case

remarks that

the medical his

witness

faith obscured he
pronounces influence in

sixth

chemical which
ness

probably his scientific impartiality. The be possibly due to to some in the water the seventh, ; while
the

Catholic, and

to

perfect restoration to sound of a gangrened sore, our philosopher, driven be beyond indeed his last resource, allows to
consists
power

any

of

nature

known

to

medical

science

in

FALLACY

OF

ACCENT.

443

the
due which

present
to
some

day,
the

but

he

declares and time

we

it to

be

probably
concealed further
to

mysterious
to

hidden have

forces of natun
been

up
our

present

from

eyes,

though

may make

hope
them

that

hereafter investigationmay he despatches to so us, and

seven.

known

his satisfaction

all the

But contains

the
a

good
very

man

forgets

that

his

argument
He

signal Fallacy of
instances that that
to

Division. knocks after

looks
down
never

at
or

these thinks

singly, and
does those
so one

them

he

another,
which
he

considering
he
manages

single sticks

fancies into
a

break which

singlyare
is unbroken

reallyunited
and
un

sturdy

staff

breakable. We may
:

put

his

form fallacyinto syllogistic

as

follows
The

firstmiracle
tion,also the
the

cited admits
second and

of

explana possible
to the

the

third,up

seventh;

But

are second, third,6-c., first,

all the miracles

cited;
/.

A II the miracles

cited admit of
accent

explanation. of a possible
or

5. The
which

Fallacy
be

prosody
if any
serves one

is

one

of fool

logicians remark
to

that

is him

enough
word

taken

in

by it, it
is of
a

poiest,debet}. (quibusquifalli
one

It consists

in

right mistaking
like

for

another

which

pronounced
herald
riche
a

it,
to

but

written

as differently, arms

ordered

insert in the
were

of
a were

some

nouvcau

cerframpant,
his landlord.
a

to

represent
narrator

tenant to

threatening
declare that

Or

if

battle

was

ON

FALLACIES.

fought in a yards because

Or
the else
same

district it took

of France

abounding
a

in

vine

place in together

champaign
words

country.
in for said

it confuses
way,
were

two

written

but
to

pronounced
understand

as differently, an

instance, if I
that
as

author

who

some

one

traversed

the
over

character

of the King
or

meaning
a

that
man

he of

went

it in detail ;

if I

practisingunlawful arts because he conjured his judges to have pity on him, and in an indefinite number of instances,which, on so a however, for the most part, involve too obvious
accused
to fallacy

have

any

serious of

power

to deceive.

6. The

Fallacy
a

figure of speech consists

which has which of
its
a

in

assigning to matical form, virtue, not of

is fallacy who
two
are one

word

certain

gram*

characteristics its form, but that is

more

belong to meaning.
to

it in This those

liable

deceive
than
one

not

conversant

with

more

or

and languages. Translation habit of speaking and thinking in tends in

to obviate

the re-translation, different

it. Still it is not

at

the

present day,
who
words argues

all events that tribus

languages, altogetherobsolete schoolboys. among

be

The

boy

must

masculine
are mas

because

of the

the
a

fourth

declension
must

culine,or
all words and says

that

in dare

be

long
a

because
re

of the

first

conjugation

have

before

risffalls into this fallacy. So, too, does

that all active
verbs

he who

imply action, and therefore the part of him who there must be some on activity sleeps,since sleepis an active verb, else how could fall of logic would we sleep a sleep? A student of the into this fallacy if he in one premisses

FALLACIES

OUTSIDE

LANGUAGE.

445

employed
other

word
we

in

its

ordinary sense,

and

in

the

in what

call its second is

a

intention, as
;

Animal

genus

This
.".

This

is an giraffe is a giraffe

animal
gemis.

II. FALLACIES
extra

OUTSIDE

LANGUAGE.

"

Fallacies
those in

dictionem, or
the in the idea

outside

language,
in the form

are

which but when

or

lies,not fallacy
of the

of

expression,
we

objects about
are

which
as

argue
same,

"

differ things which the same things as

regarded

the

different.
seven we

They,
several confuse

like heads.

the

fallacies of diction, fall under

i.

Fallacia

where accidentis,
and

together
of the
or an

the essential

the

accidental whether

characteristics it be
a

object
Thus

of

our

thoughts,

class

individual.
has taught me acquaintance with swans to regard them as always (except in the early stages of their growth) as birds of snowy plumage. But one just like day I see a bird in the Zoological Gardens river friends except that is is of a swarthy black, my my and my

first

impulse
All
This
.'.

is to argue
are

as

follows
; ;

swans

white

bird bird

is not is not
to

white
a swan.

This

If I commit
a

myself
of the

this

syllogism I
accidentis. of the essential

fall into
I have
swans

notable

instance the
as

Fallacia
whiteness
and

put down
have istic.
seen

accidental
their

universal

character

44*

ON

FALLACIES.

This

Fallacy of

accident

is

very

common man

one

in

ordinary life. If I were fornia being identical

known
in

to argue

against a
whom

in Cali

with

one

Dublin,
I

because

my dweller

formerly a acquaintance was

in California this is
a

I had

Protestant, whereas

the should
to

good

Catholic,
of the who

fall into

fallacy.

So

too, if I allow
a

myself
have

attribute

to
or

all Freemasons
if I assert

hatred
men

Catholic
had

Church,
a

that
are

all

University training

unfair as to be prejudiced so good scholars, or if I am because in his youth he was against a man guiltyof act of folly some proceeding from generous impulse serious fault. Of from not or passion, and any this fallacy Nathanael he asked : was guiltywhen "Can of Nazareth?" out good thing come any The idea prevalent in England that all Americans

speak

with

nasal

twang,
of

and

"

say and

guess,"

"

or

reckon,"
American
is

in every

sentence,

impression

burly, insolent, and In fact, other instances are ligence, among many. almost every prejudice and misconception falls under be reduced to this wide-embracing fallacy. or may second 2. The Fallacy of those extra dictionem is called a dicto secundum quid ad dictum simpliciter ; used of some from a word particular part of anything used to the same with other some or qualification, without such qualification. The generally and instance therefore common given : He has white teeth,
he is
a

corresponding an Englishman that he rather wanting in intel

the

white

man,

is
none.

very But

obvious
if
we

instance, which
were

could
a

deceive

to

apply
he

to

naturalist

the

epithet

learned

because

was

FALLACY

OF

SPECIAL

CONDITIONS.

447

acquainted
and habits

with

the

history, nature,
moth this
run a man

appearance,
on

of every

and butterfly into

the

face

of the
argue

earth, we
from
the

should
fact that

fallacy. We
secundum he
sense

is learned further in
a

in butterflies), to quid (i.e., learned for

one

the
word

fact that

is

when

we

use

the

general
at

possessed

of all should

learning,or
expect
are

any

rate natu

of

all the ralist.

learning we
Of
this
a man

in

learned

fallacy all

guilty who
in the material

judge
and

that

because

is skilful

physical sciences, therefore his words ought to carry he the law about weight when things lays down and immaterial that the lay sermons and spiritual, has attained who and addresses of one a just repu
tation and

by
to

his

careful

observation
are

of

the

irrational

mechanical when

creation,
he deals

listened

with

worthy of being metaphysics and

he is pro theology, and other subjects of which that concludes school foundly ignorant. He who sometimes because be to encouraged fights are one be suppressed by a challenge from a bully may be justly condemned a as of his victims, would should sophist,or he who to their help themselves may in one such action is justified
wages argue

that

all servants

master's who who is

goods because deprived of the

defend
the

due

to
a

him,
son

or

he

should his

positionthat
ever

may

disobey
because is

parents when
certain

he

thinks

proper,

under

special
argues
to

circumstances The from the

disobedience
form

opposite
something
when

of the

justifiable. which fallacy,

same

generally true and specialcondition some

undeniable

is introduced,

+4*

ON

FALLACIES.

is

also
one.

very The

frequent
teetotaller when
the

and who

often

very

cious
to the

refuses to
orders

perni give wine

it,on
"

sick,even
that it is who

doctor
to

the
or

ground
the
on

dangerous
will not

take his

stimulants

parent
the

correct to

the
to

plea that theologian who

Isaac,

it is cruel
condemns
on
"

child pilfering beat children, or intention

Abraham's

sacrifice

the

always unjustifiable are

dicto ad simpliciter dictum

is ground that murder all guilty of arguing a secundum quid. The whole
who

class of narrow-minded

people
heads
are

get

some

idea

or

principle into
of know it not.

their

and

circumstances,
less

all

apply it,irrespective sophists, though they Fallacy Ignoratio Elenchi, or

be

3. Not

universal the
name

is the of

kind

of

which

goes

by

setting aside the like it,but other

may be

question to
nevertheless

proved

for

some

different the

from

it.
more

It

translated

by evading
the

or question,

ignoring literally,

disproof,since

elenchus

is used to confute (eXe7%o9) is an argument which of an He or disprove the arguments opponent. therefore who, instead of disproving his opponent's

statement,
resembles
does
may
not
seem

which disproves something merely it, ignores the real point at issue, and in reality, refute his opponent though he
to

do

so.

The

skilful barrister

will often
the

seek

to

draw

off the

attention

of the

jury from

of the point at issue, viz.,the guiltor innocence by a patheticdescriptionof the havoc that prisoner, if he is convicted, or by will be wrought in his home unfair prejudiceagainst prosean seeking to create real

450

ON

FALLACIES.

affordingone who is stronger in the truth of his positionthan in the argument by which he can support it,an oppor tunityto turn the laugh against a sceptical opponent A or by some tellingretort personal accusation. of superstitionbecause I believe in man accuses me modern miracles, and instead of attempting to argue
serves

times

the

purposes

of truth, by

in favour
"

say

of my convictions I turn You ! talk of superstition

to

round

to him

and

Why

you because

refused there
the

only yesterday
were

sit down
company

to

table
This

thirteen

in

!
no

"

may

turn

laugh against him,

most
a

but it is discuss

real argument,

it is at him.

refusal

to

the

question
on was
one

with

story is told
he

of O'Connell
a man

that who

occasion

when
wrong,

had

to defend

in clearly
a

the

the counsel

for the
come

prosecutionwas
in
and

certain in
name

Mr.

Keefe, who
a

had

for had

some

money

rather

questionable way,
O'Connell
his

taken

the

of O'Kccfe.

commenced
:

his

defence

by

addressing

opponent
Keefe

Mr. I
see

O'Keefe
brief o'brief
a

by your
you
are

That

thief

o'thief,

which the

so

disconcerted
a

Mr.
was

O'Keefe returned

and

so

tickled defen

jury that
These
two

verdict

for the

dant. last

examples
of
this

come

under

the first of
are so

three
common

subdivisions
in

fallacy which
we

every-day life that

ad

cannot

pass

them

unnoticed.

(i) Argumentum

hotnhwn,

or

appeal

to

the

ARGUMENTUM

AD

HOMINEM

45i

individual
but itself,
man

when

we

do

not

defend
our a

our

position
is not

in

merely
attack
on

show

that is

opponent

the

to

it. many

This

perfectlylegitimate
If
a man

argument

occasions.
himself
a man a

of noto
as

riously immoral champion

cause

life puts if

forward
is zealous

the
some or

of

which

morality,or brings him

a

in

in

large income,
which,

strongly
in have

denounces
act

will itself,
a

right to against his right

Dr.

though good his personal disadvantage, we to the suspicious circumstance urge

measure

to

speak
the

on

the

subject.
of the

When

Newman

answered

calumnies

apostate
a as

Achilli

against the
was

Church

by enumerating
a

few

of

his crimes, he
as

doing
If
a

service

to

truth

well

to

religion.
for

home

manufacturer

argues

protective duties, it is quite fair to him answer by reminding him that he is an inter ested If a publican opposes Local Option, party. lose we are justified in replying that his arguments their weight from the fact of his fearing for his warmly
license. But from attack incur
and
nounces

if

we

seek of

to
a

divert solid

the

minds

of

our

hearers irrelevant

the
on

force the

argument
of the
at
man once

by

an

character of

using it, we

the

charge
common

offending
shows

against

fairness. how is

If

and self-love,

it

against Logic preacher de is opposed to

to

the
to

it spirit of Christianity, remind

own

no

answer

him

him

that

he

often

manifests it

this

defect listener of

in his in

conduct.
to
a

All that

the justifies

answering
loses

him,
great

is that deal

the

denunciation
in

self-love

of its force

coming

453

ON

FALLACIES.

from it he

lips of one who is chargeable with it,but the rejection of the does not justify arguments is a telling Physician, heal thyself," employs.
the
"

response

to

one

who

is unable

to

cure

in himself
But

the the

disease remedies

he
he

professesto
proposes
case

heal
are

in others.

if

in themselves he which
to

effica

cious, and
fulfil the

fail in his
necessary
we

only because
under
no

will not
alone

conditions have of his

they

will act, then

on

right

reject his
avail

remedies

account

unwillingness to

himself

of them.

(2) Argumentum
an people, when employing solid or prejudices of

populum, or appeal to the of orator or demagogue, instead argument, appeals to the passions
the
to

ad

mob. allow

"Are your

you,

freeborn
to

citizens, going

liberties of the
who
own,

be ?

trampled
Are you rob poor up you of you

upon

by
to

the

minions

oppressor have
to

going
the land the

permit
that
is bread ?

those
your

robbed
go
on

to

of

very

that
you

is to

feed
to

yout

hungry
with the with
to

children
selfish

Are

going

put
not

exactions
own

of the

rich,who,
still remains

content want

all their
you

unjustly-gottengains,
to

rob All

of the
is

little that

ignoring the point at issue, and an appeal to the unenlightened ignorance and pre judices of the people. The No-Popery cry of 1851 ad populum, and is the talk was an so argumentum about Englishmen not submitting to the yoke of a foreign despot, and other similar fallacies of pious the Pope. denounce who orators ad verecundiam, an (3) Argumentum appeal to a
you ? this

"

ARGUMENTUM

AD

VERECUNDIAM.

453

man's

sense

of
own

shame
powers.

or

natural
A
man

modesty
ventures

in
to

esti differ

mating
from

his

of Theory of Evolution, and he is accused impertinence and presumption in setting up his of genius like own opinion against that of a man had his life to the study of devoted Darwin, who it. In the
to

the

Convocation
set

of
the

Oxford

it

was

once

proposed
committee

aside

recommendation Council of the members the

on

of
some

of

the

Hebdomadal One

University question.
committee tion

of the

indignantly protested against

a measure

rejec

of

to
a

which

he

and

other

learned

seniors
and

had

devoted
to

considerable this
a

portion of time,
argument
for

seemed

think

decisive

intends to become a Catholic. accepting it. A man Before doing so, he has an interview with a Protes In your presumptuous tant ignorance, clergyman. of your are proposing to forsake the Church you the with fault find teaching that Baptism, you the learned and satisfied the saintly Keble Pusey,
"

and that than

thousands in your

of

holy

men

besides. think you

Who know

are

you,

pride you
"

should

better

they ?
The

reader

will have

no

in thinking difficulty

out

for himself with almost

plenty of
every

similar

arguments
It is not

that

we

meet to

day.

always

easy

of between a legitimate use distinguish erroneous elenchi and an of ignoratio forms

a

these
one. we

three
As

rule, it is better
that
we are

to

avoid

them,
on

unless the

feel very

sure

treading

solid

ground
is

of

truth.
4.

The

Argument

noti

causa

pro

causa

under

454

ON

FALLACIES.

its various fallacies.

forms
How
cause

one common

of the
to

most

universal effects

of the
to
an an

assign

imaginary
instance mother of of

it.
Samuel

Every rash judgment Heli judging the emotion

to

is of

the

be

due

to

too

much

wine,
fond lose

argued a non causa pro causa. of employing it. I walk

the
train

All
under

is superstition
a

ladder

and

Foolishly I attribute my to misfortune, not unpunctuality, but to the my ill-luck resulting from ladder. A a going under is shipwrecked, and a ship sails on Friday and his follyin starting blames of the passengers one
on an

just afterwards.

unlucky day.
shattered for the army
success,

An

habitual
to

drunkard

accounts

for his hard

a

nerves

the fact that

A

he studied obtains of
con

in his
and

youth.

preacher
number

great

attributes

the

versions the word from

was

to

the

eloquence wherewith
whereas grace and beads marks

he has what

preached
obtained of
men

of God, the
prayers her

all the while

God the

that moved

the hearts
some

sufferingsof
in
a corner

good
discern

old

dame As

saying
it is
one

of the church.
to

of the

of

genius

the

underlyingcauses
Felix

of events,

qui potuit rerum

cognoscere

causas,

so

it is

one

of the

marks

of

weak
on some

and

narrow

intellect to seize without

cause

reflection

imaginary
is all

and

clingto
way.

it

even

though

the evidence

the other Under A

non vera

this

fallacycome
vera,

others
we assume

resembling
as

it.

pro

where

true

some-

FAULTY

INFERENCE.

455

thing

which

we

think
a

admirably
hinted

suited
our

to
own.

explain a
Many spoken
an

fact, though
an a

it is

pure

fiction of

uncharitable

word
non

rather
as

than
as

is

of fallacy

vera

pro

vera,
one

well is

offence did
and

against the moral law. Some A give up his partnership in

Co., and
he does
were

asked, Why
of A,

the

firm

B, C,

tions
as

significant gesture implies,though transac not actually assert, that A's money creditable. Such not a reply is a fallacy,
some a

by

well

as

sin

against justice. All

come

false this

suspicions
as fallacy, or

and

unkind
as

judgments
mistakes

under

well
to

positive
tali
vera.

owing

to

inadvertence

ignorance.
A
non

pro tali is but

It arises

a a

variation mistaken
or

of the

non

vera

pro
the the

from

idea respect We
sure

ing
that ceed The the
to be

nature

of
we

some

person

thing.
which

argue
to
suc

book

have

just published is

because

of the

abilitywith simply
from

it is written hates

old-fashioned Catholic

thorough-going
because

Protestant

Church

he
very

different utterly what it really is. Fallacy 5. The

(nay, the
consequent

imagines it opposite of)

in

of

occurs

hypo
con

thetical

sequent
difference

and the antecedent where syllogisms, confused together, and we overlook are

the

between from it.

the For

condition

and
I

that

which

follows

instance,

have

learned

by

experience the truth of the proposition: If I drink when I shall have a headache much too champagne if I with a headache; One I wake. morning I wake which I am suffering from infer that the headache Cliquot indulgence in "Veuve results from my
"

436

ON

FALLACIES.

guilty night, I am Jouet's best over of this fallacy;my inference be true, but it may is not justifiedby my premiss. I have inverted the and the antecedent, and argued consequent
or

Perrier

and

as

if consequent

were

antecedent

and

antecedent

consequent.
is one encounter. we fallacy very frequently If the wind be a changes, it will rain," may true proposition,but from the descending showers If has changed. that the wind cannot we argue
"
"

This

you

do your

not

take

my

advice
a

you

will not

succeed uttered

in

enterprise," is
who love
to

by
The

those

warning often to give advice

adviser
at
once

others.

failure
to
a

comes,

and

the

lays
even

it down

the

neglect
other

of
causes

his wise
may

counsel,
have

though
it.
"

thousand
you

produced
fallacious

I told

and so," is the irritating

remark

with

which

he

friend, forgettingthat
on

the

neglect

of

his

disappointed the failure, though following advice, is not necessarilya

meets

his

poor

consequence This

of it.

fallacyis

in

many

cases

only
here

veiled The
error

form

of the formal

of faultyinference. fallacy the

however, lies in this,that difference, results, not

mind
of the in

from

the from

fact the

of

the

inference

being
the
conse

but unjustifiable,
reasoner

confusion

existingin
or

between

antecedent

major premiss. He simply identifies the two united are propositions which together, instead of regarding the merely as consequent dependent on the antecedent. of Petitio principii, 6. The fallacy or Begging tlce
quent

the

45"

ON

FALLACIES.

fallacy.1If I attempt to prove the truth of my the fact that I find them from religioustenets very comforting to my soul, and at the latter stage of the argument for their comforting properties account from the fact of their being a part of the revelation of Almighty God, I am clearlyarguing in a circle, and begging the question at issue. The skilful sophist will ingeniously slip his conclusion of his premisses in into one unawares
which I
am

this

he

thinks

it will not of

be detected.

For

instance,

protectiveduties on corn in an over-crowded I point out the hard country. ships to the farmer that result from foreign com and the injurythat is done to the agricultural petition arguing
labourer. have
I

in favour

bring
when

forward

instances

of trades

that have could

flourished
and

declined
be

they were disappeared when

protected,and cheaper goods

I urge that the advan imported from elsewhere. should not be tage resultingto the foreign grower weighed against the misery caused at home, and I the patriotism of my audience to appeal eloquently
not

to

declare it is
so

themselves

in

favour

of

free

trade

when

prevails. But Very point to be proved,

is beneficial
1

injurious to the in this appeal I

which the inhabitants
to

country
am

where

it the

assuming
a

is that

tax

on

corn

to

of the
the reader

country imthat

It is

scarcely necessary

inform

nothing

but

those who accuse excuse gross ignorance can of fallacy. The of the real process argument We first prove from is this. the by reason

Catholics

of this sort

respectinginspiration
Bible received words
as an

ordinary
confer

historical

record, that
the from
the

our

Lord The

on Infallibility

Church. decrees

pronounced of Scriptureit inspiration

Church.

which

"ubsequently

oroved

of the Infallible

FALLACY

OF

QUESTIONS.

455

patriotism I most unjustifiably beg the whole question. I am Or advocating compulsory secular educa tion. I draw a picture of the debasing effects of and moral ignorance, of the increased intelligence of those who have been trained in letters superiority
over

posing

it ; under

the

veil

of my

ignorance ; and I protest against the narrow bigotry that allows benefit done to the children to be frustrated prejudice. by religious poor In doing this I am assuming the very point to be
proved,
more a

those

left in

without God compulsory education beneficial than joined voluntary education that fear of Him. last
on our

is
to

love and 7. The

list of

Fallacies

is called

Fallacia

several ques where Inferrogationum, could all be if they were tions are or asked one as answered one question is asked together, or when which or involves which a previous assumption may
Plurium
may
not

be

true.

I
or

demand,
No
to

for

instance,
Martin
a man

Cate Were

gorical answer
not

Yes

the

question:

St.

Paul, Socrates,
devoted
to
men

Savonarola,
?
or

Luther,
when who he
was

noble

and

I ask The

left off asked

drinking

excess?

child
or

whether

it loved

its father the latent

mother

best,
it often

judiciously recognized
answered: takes the
I

fallacy when fallacy

for
can some

love

both

best.

This the
"

form is not

of demanding
the really that is is
common
a case.

reason

thing that
defend
may
as come

How do

their of

maxim it?"

you

may

evil

Jesuits that good

assumes

question
false.
resource

which
This

granted

what
is
a

simply

fallacy of
attack

Questions

of all who

460

O^

FALLACIES.

the

cause

of

Truth. between
later

How

do

you

account
utterances

for

the

contradiction earlier
and

the is
a

infallible
one

of

Popes?
contains

of

those

insidious
to

questions
by
that
tests
reason

which of Church
men

lie

impossible

refute is it

its

dishonest is of

vagueness.

How

the with

always
science of

in ?

the How

wrong

in is it

her that

con

she ?

suppresses Such
are

the

spirit

research of
;

and

honest
is false

inquiry
as

foolish of

assumptions
occurrence

what in

true

every-day
among dark

fact

the
measure

prejudice
due

existing
to

Protestants

is in
out

great
those
venture

the

hints

thrown and

by
not

who
to

seek
do

to
so

discredit

Catholicity,
statement.
we

do

by

open

Before
must

quit
the
and

the

subject
that line it

of is

Fallacies,

we

remind
a

reader

impossible
their been have various
made

to

draw

hard

fast

between have We and

divisions.

Various them in than in the

to

attempts
modern times. of

to

classify
to

preferred

follow

steps

Aristotle

St. Thomas,
or

rather fancied with

to

adopt

the that
all

improvements,
have
have been
set

the

improvements,
liberal hand of

introduced themselves their

more

by

who the

the

task

recasting

Logic

of

distinguished

predecessors.

CHAPTER
ON
METHOD

X.
AND ITS

LAWS.

Importance
of

of Method" Sciences" of
Rules
"

Synthetic
Laws Methods
"

and

Analytic Methods"
"

Method axiom
"

various

of
"

Method St.

Its

primary
on
"

.Certitude
Practical

various
of

Thomas Caution be

Certitude

"

Method

necessary
end
to

Importance

of Distinctions

Method

and

the

attained

by it. advance
and

WE from have be

have

now

considered

reasoning
to
a

as

an

certain examined

given premisses
the in
order

conclusion,
which

form
to

or

shape
touched from
are

into

it must
in
on

thrown,

ensure

correctness

the the

process.

We of

have the

also

briefly
which
matter
we we

character
and

premisses
that

start,
of
to
our

have

said the of
may and

they
on

the

arguments,

material the

which

have
But

work

by
and

means

reasoning
both be conclusion

process.
:

matter

form

excellent

our

premisses
from do
very
we

correct

the
our

rightly deduced
able

them,
much
can

without
towards

being

thereby
of

to

the of
man

attainment

Truth, unless
to

make

sure

choosing might
them
do

the
an

right method
excellent
most

be

pursued.
horses but
oi and

have in the

pair

of

drive
not

approved
the
a

form,

he the

would end

much

towards
if he

attainment
road
over

of

his

journey,

chose

ON

METHOD

AND

ITS

LAWS.

the blue waters of the

desert.

of ocean, His

or

even

over

the soft sands be

method

of

proceeding would

and faulty,

this would

stop his advance.

Method

is therefore
we mean

ation, and
Method
and

important consider by Method, a system of right

a

very

for procedure

the attainment

of
be

Truth. divided into

in

general

may

synthetic

is that which starts analytic. SyntheticMethod the from simple and proceeds to the compound, from the universal and starts proceeds to the parti cular. It is the method of composition("rvv6ecrt,$) inasmuch it puts together (crvvOelvai,, as compotfcre) the

simple
as

elements
Thus

which

composite
much

whole.

it begins from
from

complex or Geometry is syntheticinas and defi axioms, postulates,

up

form

the

nitions,and
and

them

builds

the most

intricate

The method complex problems and theorems. of Logic is synthetic inasmuch it starts from as ideas together in a judg ideas or concepts, unites is or judgments into a syllogism. Ethics ment,

syntheticin method, simple data of thethem

laws
to

inasmuch
moral

as

it starts

from

the from
and

law,

and

advances of conduct

frame

more

elaborate

rules

of human

action.

Analytic Method, on the other hand, starts from the complex and tfrence proceeds to the simple, the particularand from proceeds to the universal. of analysis or resolution (dvd\v"ri":), It is the mode inasmuch it resolves (dva\veiv,resolvere) the com as posite whole
a

into is

its component
to

elements.

When for

theorem

proposed
he

the

geometrician
various

solution, and

separates off the

portions

METHOD

OF

VARIOUS

SCIENCES.

463

of

the

thus before the

figure,assigning to each its own laws, and arriving at a proof of the proposition laid method of analysis. When him, he pursues a
from the individuals
to

logicianargues
class
a

the whole

of the
from

composed
to
a

of them,

he

is

proceeding

greater

less

ing the placed

and

analytic method.
before him the
a some

complexity, and is pursu When a theologian has

case are

difficult

of
to

conscience,
be his is

discerns

which principles solution All of

guide

in
one

arriving at
of

it,his method
are

analysis.

sciences their

clearly partly analytic analy analysiswhen

water
01

and

partly synthetic in
pursues
to

method. of

The

tical chemist he has

the him

method the
in

submitted

stagnant
detail

adulterated

food,
which

and

gives
it is

the On

various the other the

some

ingredients of
hand he

composed.
method sick

pursues

the made

synthetic
up

when
or

prescription is
delicate
very

for the

man,

perfume composed
in
are

of elements

perhaps
are

not

attractive
But

detail. sciences

there

some

which

synthetic in their method, and use as subsidiary to their primary and natural system of proceeding. Others, again,are primarilyanalytic, and for them synthesis is subsidiary. The method of Logic, Geometry, Ethics, is primarilysynthetic, of Chemistry that or Botany, primarily analytic.
How We have of
or
our more are we

primarily analysis only

to

account to

for this difference fall back laid

Some
stress
on a

?
we

have

here
once

distinction
in the
are
a

than

upon

course

investigation.

sciences
as

priori
from

deductive

sciences, inasmuch

they

start

464

ON

METHOD

AND

ITS

LAWS.

based the inner nature are on principleswhich of things and the laws of reason. These on prin case ciples are discernible underlying the concrete it is presented to us. Such sciences are soon as as Logic, Ethics, Algebra, Politics, Geometry. inductive sciences, Other sciences are a posteriori or inasmuch as are they start from principles which learned from observation and experiment and from a study of the external world, and are based, not on of things or on the laws of reason, the inner nature

but
not

on

the laws
at
once

of external

nature.

These

laws

can

be

discerned,
universe

but

can

only
us.

be

arrived

at

gradually and
into the
are

by questioning

nature

and Such

searching
sciences

material

around

Acoustics,

Optics, Hydrostatics, Mechanics,

are

Chemistry, Botany, "c. Other sciences, again, depend partly

on a

mixed, in that

they

priori principles,partly on a laws. In these it is necessary to employ in posteriori due a priori science, proportions the data of some learned and the laws that are by experiment and
observation. is based Such
a

science

is Astronomy,

which

partlyon
laws. which

physical Economy, partly on

partly on geometrical principles, science Such a again is Political

depends partly on the moral law of individual the physical conditions is primarily synthetic or Each science countries. according as it is chieflyde analytic in method in its character, according as ductive inductive or for the its laws most a are part a priori or
laws. posteriori But
as
we

shall

see,

the Laws

of Method

admit

of

466

ON

METHOD

AND

ITS

LAWS.

vidual
of

things,and
them

by

the diminution
and
to

of the

necessity

watching

effects

from laws.

ascending
law
seems

judging from results, and maxims, axioms, principles,

be
too

This

to
one

obvious

to

be

worth

but stating,

it is The

that

in

practice is
with
a

often

neglected.
aims who
at that

student is

who,

foolish

sadly ambition,
teacher and in

which into

thrusts

beyond his his unhappy

attempt
instances
;

reach

; the

pupils
to

laws them

principleswithout telligible by concrete

who
assumes as

any

render

the

metaphysician
we can

innate, principlesto which

the
data

only
reason,

rise

from

all transgress this

we

interpreted by primary and simple law.

sense

of

Here between

must

recall

the
more

distinction

we

drew better known and

things
and To

in themselves
more

simple

and

known,
to two
us.

things
the four is

simple

to us, better

child

make

the Identityon which from a is better known coming change of weather familiar signs,than gathering together of a hundred The from the applicationof a few elementary laws. be the must which we require in method simplicity

propositionthat two simpler than the primary Law it is based ; to ordinary men
the

of

which simplicity avails

be
to
us 2. more

is relative to the individual. that in

an

What

it to

us

idea

or

simple
All method

if itself,

it

should proposition is not more simple

?
to be

sound

great rule for attainingtrue

gradual. The knowledge is pedetentim

must

be

procedcre.Slow and that genius will true

sure

must

be

our
a

motto.

It is

sometimes

by

brilliant guess

CERTIT'JDR

OF

VARIOUS

KINDS.

467

or

an

instinctive appreciation of truth

are

overleap the
But
and
even

steps that
a man

necessary

to

ordinary men.
is

of be for
to

genius will, if

he

wise,

test

try, it
he
of law.
not

may

long

years,

his

before wide-hypothesis, the honoured

name

ventures

stamp

it with

is for ordinary mortals, Besides, legislation

men

for

of
an

genius, and

for them of
error.

to

hurry to
be sage

conclusion

is

unfailingcourse
3.

The

same

certaintycannot
This is Aristotle's We
our

attained
remark

in
at

all the

the

sciences.

beginning
degree
of.
You

of the

Ethics. which

must

of certitude

only that subject-matter admits

expect expect

might
a

as

well, he

says,
as

persuasive
from

oratory from
an as

mathematician

demonstration that
to

orator.

He
a

might

have

added

you

might
meta
a

well

expect
a

mathematician of tableaux
or

illustrate
as

physics by
teacher method of

series

vivants,
one

expect

physical science,
to

who

pursues

its

of argument, We

attain
not

to

the certitude here

of the
we

metaphysician.
have in
to

need

repeat
head of

what

already said speaking of the

quote
a

under

the

certitude, and
It is

inductive from

methods.
St. Thomas.1

enough

few

words

Speaking
be

of two and will it is with

to

contrary

rules which "There

are

lead

men

to

sceptical
"who unless
common

doubt,
receive

some,"

he

says, them is

not

anything that mathematically proved.

who

is told

This

those

have

had

mathematical
Others unless
it that
2.

training,
there
is
are

because who Before

custom not

is second

nature.

will

receive
some
1

anything
of MtUph.

there their

put

them

instance
Lect.
5, in

senses

468

ON

El

HOD

AND

ITS

LAWS.

can

from of

perceive. This results the predominance in

senses,

either them

from
of the

habit,

or

influence power. every

their

and

want
are

of intellectual who
be
a

Others, however,

there

desire based
on

that

thing

stated

to them

should
on

certitude,
rational
a

that it should

be

founded

diligentand
of
in

inquiry. This is the result of the exercise reason understanding in judging and supposing always that it is not sought
where it cannot exist." advice has
a

sound

inquiry,
matters

in

This

golden

value practical fatal habit of

for every

intellect that

inquires.

The

and treating them unproved conclusions were mathematically established, is a vice

common

accepting if they as
no

less

than

that results

of

an

obstinate there

refusal

to

accept

unpalatable

for which

exists

evidence

To start some magnificent enough and to spare. of hypothesis is always a strong temptation to men receive on intellectual ambition, and to authority they cannot general principles the proof of which

follow

step by step, is

serious, and

too

often fatal

trial to their intellectual

humility.
laws
a

practical rules applicableto all scientific investigation, whether from it proceed from universals to particulars, or
must to

We

add

these

number

of

to particulars

universals.

(i) Never
stood. There said

employ
is in
no

any need

term to

unless

it be
we

under have

repeat what
ill-defined

already
ness

of

speaking perception, vague

confusion of

of definition.
and

Indistinct

ideas,

an

inaccurate

things reallydifferent, an

NECESSARY

CAUTION.

469

assignment
the
a

of

imaginary differences
hand
of in

to

things really
neglect
of of Most the
to

same,

all go

hand

with used.

the

careful

definition

terms

common

objections to
doctrines of the

the

worship
of

of

our

Lady,

the

Immaculate

Transubstantiation,
of Infallibility of due the the

and
Roman

Conception, of Indulgences ; to the

to

Pontiff,
of

the

system
are

Casuistry, to
to

doctrine
or erroneous

Intention, "c.,
notions

either

inexact of the

respect

ing the meaning

and The accidental law of

terms

employed.
the essential discussed.
to
a

(2) Distinguish clearly between

elements in the
matter

Association, which
and unless

is liable

very

perilous abuse,
constant
source

carefullywatched
exhibits union
to us,

is union

of error,

in

with

one

another, things the

The
;

of which

is but

accidental. for the

own some cause

invariable

antecedent

is mistaken
as

the

phenomenon
has
never

which,
been

far

as

our

observation other with

goes,

separated

from

united

phenomenon, is regarded as inseparably in some it. An Englishman resident

sees

cityof South America a professionof the

of

united

in the

inhabitants

Catholic

a religion,

morals, and

an

absence

of all energy,

great laxity fortitude,or

comes

perseverance. conclusion between

to

Neglecting our
that there
and

rule, he
necessary

to

the

is

connection
him. Or

Catholicism
a

the vices

around

take

very

different that headache

a

sports
followed

observes

by

given to field example, a man day's shooting is invariably the following morning. on
that
to

When

experience has taught him to^other, he begins variably go

the

two

in the

connect

ON

MBTHOb

AND

HS

LAWS

previous day with the head ache from which he is suffering, but fails to observe that the day's shooting induces exhaustion at an he seeks to remedy dinner-time, which by several
exercise taken
on

the

extra

glasses
the for the

of

bottled

stout

or

port
when his

wine.

He
ante

mistakes
cedent

accidental
cause,

for the essential, the

till one

day,
to
a

he

observes

his usual

moderation, he
walk all

finds

surprise that
under
a

he

may

day

over

heavy country

inconvenience burning sun, without following any thereupon, as long as he keeps to his pint of stout and have Or two glasses of wine. again, we may in the newspapers observed that a larger number of lose their lives by drowning on a Sunday persons than other day. this fact the Scotch On on any

Presbyterian makes explained by the their pleasure on

the circumstance
number

the remark
anger

that with

it

can

only be
take

of God

all who

His that

holy day ; quite overlooking it is on Sunday that a great

of the in the middle
use

of

excursionists
are

and

lower
and

classes,who

unskilled
take

of boats the water.

rarelycan swim, must (3) We

various from
we

their

pleasure on

very

parts of the

carefullyseparate off question to be discussed

them up several

the
one

the have
is

other, and
mastered

follow the

in detail until the that the

parts of which
this
means

whole
we are

composed.
able
to

It is

only by
the
our

separate
to

accidental

from

essential, and instance,

of vice in
a man

thus who

Christianitywere
some

If, for ground. was investigatingthe truth of the considering the cause
clear American

South

State,

he

would

IMPORTANCE

OF

DISTINCTIONS

471

take
stances

in

detail that
seem

the evils
to

that

exist, and
He

the

circum examine

foster them.

would

the

condition

of
very

neighbouring
much in resemble

countries those
save

whose of the

cir State

cumstances

under

discussion thus
see

everything
one

religion,and
the

having
would absence.
and

isolated what
was

element result

in

question, by
its the moral
most

the

produced

He

would,

moreover,

examine

social

condition the

of countries
South American
but

differingin

respects
which
we

from
are

concerned,
of

Republic resembling it in
But
we are

with

their
our

possession
readers

Christianity.
observed,
clear
and

here,

as

will

have

recurring

to

the

Methods

of Agreement for the the

Difference

noticed
are

above, and
indebted
to

labours
we

we exposition of which Mill. of Mr. John Stuart

(4) Lastly,
a

must

remember
we
a

that

it makes investi

great

difference for

whether with
or

are

making
to to

gations
to

ourselves

view

the attainment
communicate In

of scientific
others

knowledge,

seeking
in is
as our

knowledge
case,

already

possession.
natural have method before
are

che
to

former
be

Analysis
inasmuch
and
a

the
we

pursued,
results
up
to

us

complex
combined
have

knowledge,
of
our

results of

which
causes.

the
we an

number

After formed
we

broken

phenomena
the
see

and

hypothesis as
to test

its component

parts,

shall

have

this

hypothesis by
have
to to

opposite
whether

process the
causes

of

shall We Synthesis.. which are supposed done

so,

have

and
see

with what

this the

together to

produced it have really them combine object we result will be. An analytical

47*

ON

METHOD

AND

ITS

LAWS.

chemist

has

some

water

sent
cures

him that
He

from it is has

mineral

spring which
esteemed
to
so

works be

such

generally
asked

miraculous.
he
can

been

whether,
can

far
to

as

its health-giving effects tell, of certain in it.

tests

be

due

the

effect of the combination

are

minerals

which

held

in

solution

He

accordingly begins by applying

which the
he
can

certain and

by
has
to to

ascertain

the

nature

quantity of

After he ingredients it contains. satisfied himself this point, he has recourse on

various

the

experience of himself produced

on

and

others

with

regard

the results minerals

tions in

by these various when administered together in the propor which they exist in the spring, and from
processes, his

the system

those two
he draws

first analysisand

then

synthesis, question
to

conclusion

respecting the
chemist has

asked But
on

of him.
suppose

this

same

lecture

audience to an : to explain intelligent subject, to them why it is possibleor impossible (as the case be) that the spring could produce naturallythe may

the

effects ascribed He appears

on

to

it.

Here

he

reverses a

the

platform with
mineral

the process. series of phials he has

containing the
discovered the
results

different

salts which

in the

spring. He
on

explainsto his audience

human

of
effect

each of

probable

in that he synthesis, exhibits in his descrip in his lecture,and elements tion the complex result, they would produce together. then to He on analyze the various cures, to goes explain in their separate details the changes wrought

body, and the whole. He the begins with combines together the simple
the

474

ON

METHOD

AND

ITS

LAWS.

complexity
the
nature

to

simplicity.
his
curve,

Having
draws

thus it in of his

discovered

of

he the

detail,

putting
and

together
thus

by

synthesis
the

results

analysis,
the But
a

constructing
which constituted of the

geometrical
his

curve,

equation
if it is of

of
a

original knowledge

data.
to

question

imparting
formula

learner,
in
or

teaching
matical the whole
in

which

expresses,
or

mathe
cusp,

language,
process the form
or

hyperbola,
is of
reversed.
a

parabola,
First the of all

there notion

is

given,
of in the

definition,
in

simplest
This
and

curve

figure
with

question. algebraic
enables of which
to

definition,

combination

other

geometric
learner
to
an

principles

already
under process

acquired,
the of
more

the his

perform,
elaborate

guidance synthesis simple

arrives This
at

teacher,

proceeds
more

step

by

step
at

from

the

the

complex,
of
know
to

until
curve

length

he

the
he

equation
tests

the

in

question.
a

done,

his

ledge
various

by

subsequent
different

analysis.
values,
with
a

He and

gives
so

the his

symbols
thus
to

verifies
corre

synthesis, sponding
commenced.

ending by
which

process

exactly
mathematician

that

the

skilled

APPENDIX.
ON
THE SCHOLASTIC METHOD.

IT

is

common

charge against
of

Scholastic safe

Philo of

sophy

that, instead

pursuing
it assumed them that
as

the

method

interrogating nature,
unproved,
all the The
and

certain
a means

employed
questions

principles of solving
themselves. date from

various

presented
who aside

modern

Experimental
itself of
a a
on

School,

Bacon,
method

prides
with facts
to
so

setting
and

the

priori

for that facts

the

into
upon

inquiry subsequent generalization based

It does
not

careful

elaborate

examined.

fall within

our

province
has
and

give a historyof
strong
advance alluded the
?
"

this great

change, which

given
to

an

the

impulse to physical discovery We of the physical sciences.

to

have sation

already

it elsewhere.1
cannot

But

the

accu over

against
and well be

Scholastics it has
a

be

passed
in
was

unnoticed,
it may

certain how

foundation far there

fact,
any

tc

point
out

out

thing deserving
We have

censure

in the that

Scholastic the
a

Method.
ana

pointed
is the

or posteriori, a

lyticmethod,
or

method

of

the discovery, The

seqq.

priori,
are

synthetic, that
1

of instruction.
Pp. 82,
seqq., 379,

Schoolmen

476

APPENDIX.

accused

neglectingto cultivate the former, and of in the way of consequently making no progress enlarging the field of human knowledge, and of devo of being and to the latter, ting themselves entirely
satisfied with
one
a

of

traditional

system of dogmas borrowed

any serious

from

the

other, without

attempt

to

verify them

by an appeal to experience. They are of starting on accused philosophical investigation with certain dogmatic prejudices, instead of taking the facts,and by the a posteriori method building up,
from which time human
a

careful
once

examination

of them, the
were

principles
march of

when

the

firmlyestablished landmarks to guide the

Instead

for all future

onward

knowledge. with a investigation

ideas
on

of

fair field

settingout on their and no favour, with no

Ethics
or

fixed

the
are

subject

of

Logic

or

Psychology, they
for

granted that what of searching instead to see own intelligence

Of in the

supposed to have blindlytaken was true, taught to them was

the book of nature those is
not

and

their
so.

whether

physical sciences it mediaeval times they did

progress.

things were true perfectly

make any

that
very

rapid
science

Since

the

Reformation,

physical
Material that

has

advanced has
been

with

giant

strides.
to
an

civilization would
not

been

developed

extent

have

lost her

had scarcelypossibleif the Church modern dominion over a large part of have
never

Europe.
which of

Victories

been

won

over

Nature the

of

the Schoolmen

dreamed,
of
success

and

spirit

by fear enterprise,unchecked fought its way with astonishing

arts

has authority, in all the

natural

and

sciences.

THE

SCHOLASTIC

METHOD.

477

But
not

is the the

same

true

of the

the

sciences

that ? not with

deal with brute God

de

with

material with

but

immaterial

the
matter

visible but
but
on our

the

invisible ? not

with
answer

mind,
to
or

thought, conscience,
this

It is

the

question

that the

must

pend
Method. No which

approval

disapproval of

Scholastic

one

will, I imagine, deny

with the invisible than
and

that

the

sciences
are are con

deal

immaterial which

of

far greater
cerned with has
a

importance
the

those the

visible and influence

material, that Theo

logy

greater
and

for

good

or

evil than

If to the Psychology than Botany. a priori sciences as they are called, the a posteriori method has been successfullyapplied, the follyof be conceded. neglecting it must the if not, if it has proved a failure when But once is consideration of the corruptiblethings around us exchanged for the study of the incorruptible and conservative shall rejoice in the eternal, then we of the a priori method maintenance by Scholastic though they forfeited thereby the Philosophers, even and Light, with superior acquaintance with Heat the Schoolmen in

Chemistry,

Physiology
the boast Now fixed

and

Botany

and

Chemistry,
the

which

is

of the

present day.
sciences

in all the mental

acceptance

of

has become true year principlesas universally have those who phenomenon among by year a rarer that have methods the a posteriori applied to them been pursued in the physicalsciences. so successfully

In the

the

latter, the
unless

brilliant

hypothesis
and

cannot

hold
a

ground

it is true,

there

is

con.-

47"

APPENDIX.

physicalques tions. In the former, the hypothesis, whether brilliant or its ground in spite of its not, holds of testingit and detect falsity.There is no means ing its true character if it is an imposture.
on

consensus tinually increasing

all

The of

consequence

of this is that

there and
ever

is

nc

sort

convergence

of
on

opinion
the of

on

moral
an

with new religion dogmas and are eagerly accepted. On continually appear on questions of morality the disagreement even forms
matters

questions, but divergence. New

contrary

religious increasing

that

concern

the natural is in
a

law

increases

day by
called

day. Psychology
All the in

state

of the wildest of

confusion.
are

fundamental

Laws

Thought

who is supposed to question, and the logician, suicidal of Truth, professes with be the champion be at the same scepticism that a proposition may in no and time true false,and that contradictories
way
ance.

exclude

each
are

other

from

simultaneous

accept

departure frcm method of the Schoolmen: the a priori judged even be method cannot they certainly by the a posteriori within itself fighting regarded as happy. An army is not marching to victory; there is no increasing
These the results of the

questioning as is continuallyincreasing. is Truth to what the a priori off entirely But is it possibleto shake and the acceptance of certain principles method as in discussing true prior to all reasoning ? We saw
grasp

of Truth

where

the

discordant

philosophy of Mr. Mill1 that he assumes which he professes to a First Principle sciously
the
1

uncon

prove.

Cf. pp.

80"

91.

THE

SCHOLASTIC

METHOD.

479

runs petitio principii through the whole of the The Scottish Experimental School. metaphy sicians,on the other hand, by their assertion of the same

The

conditional

and

of

the

relative

character

of

our

concepts,

declare Truth to be practically something subjective to the individual, and destroy the reality of Objective Truth the German at all ; while Hege

lians, carrying

out

the

antinomies
are

of
true

Kant,

and

declaring
shut
can

that

contradictories
out
a man

together,
who that

themselves
argue

of the who
same

with
says

for : entirely practically asserts time

true

field

what that

he the

is at

the who

and

false,or

opponent
Truth Aristotle
we

contradicts himself?

him

is

equally in lays
to
us

possession of
When down rather
we assume are

with
at

the

begining
from

of his

Ethics

that than
to
no

must

begin
the method

things
does

familiar
mean

first

he principles,

not

that
and
to

imitate

of the

moderns He

for granted. principles from

as

is

advocating
universal

the

procedure
men

the the
grasp
us

concrete

fact to the is
more

law, inasmuch

latter in

difficult for form. of those

as

ordinary

to

abstract
case

The

he principle,
are

tells
in

will, in the

who

well-trained

morals, be clear

to them

under

the he urges lying the fact, and for this reason for those who are importance of a careful education to questions. They will be able at study moral when its particular the innate to grasp principle once by application is put before them, just as a man
reason

of his mental

constitution
to

at

once

grasps
are

the

fact that each

things equal

the

same

thing

equal to

other.

APPENDIX.

This

it is which

is the true

a are

method posteriori called the Deduc

of

Scholastic

Philosophy
as

in \\hat
to

tive sciences moderns. the

opposed
under

the false method it is the

of the

With law

the former
one

recognition of
;

universal

single instance
of the

with
law

the latter it is the

building up
methods. On

universal

by
the
we

an

observance

of results to be

Experimental
are

tested by carefully physicalquestions

were

ready to admit behind, and that they

into the

that the had the heat

not

Schoolmen thrown
their

far

energy and
was

of investigation and electricity lightand because

propertiesof
and sound.

steam

This

they regarded as interest, questions which

dinate
in the

the true
are men.

now

objects of human subor practically

interests the in
Hence
were

in the science
and

minds

of

Their

of sciences, in in all the ministered method other

Theology,
sciences

science
propor

of God, tion method

sciences
as

they
was

thereto. of

their

that
were

all these Inductive

of the Theology and its immediate were handmaids, and as and Deductive a priorisciences, not
a

the

and

their posteriori,
not

method

was

naturally
acquisition
in
modern

the Deductive Did of

and

the Inductive
advance
so,

method.
in the

this hinder
?

their

knowledge

Perhaps

in

what

of Science, but not in parlance bears the name Pure Mathematics. Theology, or Philosophy or For in Philosophy all discovery is but an applica to fresh facts. There tion of a priori are principles The laws of the fresh principlesto discover. no human mind
may be

elaborated

or

re-stated, but
the

from

the beginning they have

been

guides

of

APPENDIX.

sislent with

Truth, and
of

engages

to

remedy
But

the

evil

by

fresh

discoveries is but
one

its

own.

alas ! the

promise turn by
who

ill fulfilled;

he, too, is slain in his

upon

who

follows
him with

close
no

his

heels, and
than
he pre

denounces

less his

vigour

had

himself

displayed against
indeed,
some

discarded

decessor.

spirit, perceiving the inconsistencies of his own system of philosophy, defies criticism by announcing the necessity of and antinomies by asserting that contradictories be true together. Thus his can indeed, he escapes enemies, but it is to fall by his own sword, for what
becomes of Truth allowed
if
to
a

Sometimes,

bolder

dictory are
Truth
?

proposition and its be equally in accordance

battle
goes
on

contra

with

Thus outside warfare

it is that the Catholic

the

continually
internecine

Church,
for is
c:\vn
a

and

the

is mistaken

multiformity oi error of truth, and ness

another
content

healthy sign of life. The the many-sided misnamed when one hypothesis after
men arc

proves
to

to

be

utterly untenable,
it too
But within Truth

invent

yet another, that

with
cannot

may

be
a

rejected
system
It may

in its turn.

the fold of Truth

at

variance
a

long flourish.

by

the

active

if it be gain adherents, advocated of an the plausibility force of genius and find itself in intelligence. But it will soon for time

conflict with demned who

came

Truth, and
bear witness

sooner

or

later will be
Vicar For

con-

by

the infallible voice

to

of the the Truth.

of Him within

to

her

the

perfect Truth

dwells, and, dwelling there,

THE

SCHOLASTIC

METHOD.

-must

soon

expel
man can

the

subtlest

form

of

error

that

the

mind

of

devise. in the

This
can

is
no

why
new

philosophy
but
For

of the

Church

there
of

be

discoveries,

only developments
fresh

Truth
a

already possessed.
aside of what

discovery
and

means

setting

exists

already,
to

if what

exists but
to

already
introduce

is the the

perfect Truth,
destructive
be
not

set

it aside
error.

is

poison

of

We Method Scholastic

cannot,
of

therefore,
did

surprised
flourish
can

if

the
the

Discovery
of
on,

among
ever

philosophers.
method look will the from

Nor

it

be

the

adopted
will
ever

Catholic her

Church. throne the

upon

She
the

Rock,
modern
sooner

and

watch

unmoved

discoveries
will contribute

of

science, knowing
or

that

they

later,

one

and

all, to
will watch

illustrate the
rise

the
and

truth

of

her
one

philosophy.
system
amid her of their

She

fall of

philosophy
dismantled
supremacy

after

another,
she
true

knowing
remain of For
more

that in

ruins the of all

will

unshaken
and

Queen

all
to

Science her
than

the and and

can

Mistress all sciences Science

Philosophy.
but
none

all arts

minister,
of

the

Art

Logic,
the

since

the
to
or

Catholic

Church
a

alone

challenge
in her

world

point
a

out

single inconsistency

teaching,
of
has

single philo
to

weak

point
which

in

the God

perfect system
through
her

Divine

sophy
world.

given

the

THE

END.

INDEX.

ABSTRACTION

102-

-105.
"

ACCENT, ACCIDENTS,

fallacy of 443
of 173, 174

445.

conceptualises account, 123"129,132"139,146*.; consciousness, its relation

100

of

to

definition

fallacy of 445, 449 ; inseparable 182"185 predicamental 187

"

definition
;

of 93, 97,

98
114, of

false
;

notions

of, generate
113, 127
"

192

scepticism

separable 185. ACTION, a predicament 1 88, 1 89. Mill's method of AGREEMENT,

182"

129, 138, 139; Hamilton's view

123

"

389, 390, AMPHIBOLOGY,

"439ANALOGY

392,

393of

146 n. \ 129, 132"139, ideas, engendered by 95 ;

fallacy

436

imagination,
101,
102

its

relation

to

ANALYSIS,
474-

407"411. when

judgment,
used 471
"

its relation

to

247,

248;
memory, its relation
on

to

101

ANIMALS, idealization, incapable

116, 117
120

Mill,
of
1

129"139
error on

10,

moderns' 139;

105,
of

121

"

imagination
;

of

98, 99, 117

of 4 7. Nominalism
"

"

nominalistic
1395 process 105; sensation, sensible tion
to

view

129

"

thinking powers
ANSELM

of

98

"

100,

102

"

(St.) on
of 307.

148.
ANTECEDENTS

its relation

to

100;

propositions

perception, its rela

101.

289,
ANTINOMIES

35, 36, 139.

AQUINAS
views
to

(ST. THOMAS),
on,

his

APPREHENSION

(SIMPLE),
relation

Abstraction, its
102
"

Aristotle's

reduction
339
n.

of

syl 467,

105

;
to

logisms
100,

attention,its relation

certaintv.
'

degrees

of

INDEX.

contradiction, principleof
345

induction, 368;
induction

complete

366
"

enthymemes, 356, 357

eternityof

incomplete 376

creation,77 n. experiment, minute 365 ; fallacy, 449 ;

figure, first 331 n. induction 378 ; intentions, second
;

378, 386, 400 ; of word logic,use 27, 28 petilio principii, name

457 ; Plato's idea of

for

universals

167

n.

158"160;
use predicate,
a

knowledge
305;

perfecting
science

nature

of word
479,
;

263480
j

p'iori reasoning
17 "., 19,
20

logic

as

24
; nature

science

universals

164

definition similarity,
161
n.
n.

of

136

unityof human
ARGUMENT,
a non

causa

pro
450
"

causa

453,
;

454;
ad ad
a a

honiinem

452

populum
non non

452 ; tali pro tali 455

vera

subject,use of word 263 ; syllogisms,reduction of 339; r6ri fy dvai, meaning of 5 ".; unity,kinds of 143 n.\ universals 164. definition of logic ARNAULD,
25.

pro

vera

454,
;

4555
ad

ART, Aristotle's
452, 453
20

views
of
"

of

17"

verecundiam,

; nature

for 95 ; ASSENT, conclusion, synonym synonym of ment logic treats 9 ; 250. reasoning expressed by, 95, ASSERTION, synonym 310.
ment

20. 17 for

judg

for

judg

250.
errors

ARGUMENTATION,
Aristotle
synonym 94.
on

ASSOCIATION,
325
;

arising
470.

from
90
"

law

of

469,

for

reasoning
on

ATTENTION

100"102.

ARISTOTLE,
art

his views

BAIN,

his views

on

Argumentation 325;
17 "., 19, 20; of word

396, 397 ; of consistency, principle

9'
J

causation

90,

categorical, meaning
288;

kinds
1

186.

89 ; degrees of 467 certitude,

conversio

categories,the
per
400

BEING,
; idea 33,

of, underlies 34;.

all ideas

contra ;

342 ; of word

deduction

metaphysics,
8,

its relation
to

to

dialectic, meaning
28;
dictum

41,' 42

omni, the 316 n. enthymemc, the 356 358;

"

de

non-being, non-beirg and

CATEGORIES, CAUSATION,
"f.aln'sview

its relation

34;

falsity 42. predicaments, 396, 397

:

epichirem,359

see

definition of 402 n. ; example, experiment, minute 365, 386;

of, principle
on

INDEX.

487

enunciation

72 ; of 73 79 ; falsification of 78, 79 ;

of

explanation

"

CONCEPTUALISM, Locke's theory

152 ;;. ; refutation 129, of

of

modern

identity(law of) its

tion with
Mill's

connec

modern

123 of

"

idea

76, 77 of 80"
with

sufficient

reason

connection

88; (law of) its 77,78.

132"139; universals, doctrine

157"158 147, Hamilton. CONCLUSION,

argument,
truth of 310 CONDITION synonym
"

see

144 also
"

CAUSES,
efficient
final 73 ; formal 72 immediate

73"76;
;

for 95 ;

312.

(special), fallacyo(
100.

74, 75 ;
72
; ;

446"448.
CONSCIOUSNESS

material

metaphysical 396
nature

CONSEQUENT,

of 72

"

76
;

fallacy of 455
of of

physical 396
sensationalist's 397CERTAINTY

view

propositions307. principleof 396, CONSISTENCY,

91.

90,

426

"

428.
;
"

CONTRADICTION,
of

principle of,
idea

CERTITUDE,

Aquinas' (St. Thomas)

345.
from 33 ; of 40 abuse of

384" 386, 415" 417 to 426 certainty, relation

428;
definition
of 415
; ;

absolute

enunciation
errors

;
"

first of all 40"42

;

principles 33
on

35

degrees
254
;

of

467, 468

hypothesis confused

with

253,

1 lamilton

36

Hegel
see

on

35 ;
re

hypothetical,
401;

physical ;
399
"

of),its identity(principle
lation Kant
on

induction, generates metaphysical,

moral
see

to

43
;

"

49

35

absolute
;

founded logic, Manscl

on

on

42 ;

415

"

417

35 ;

physical 384"386, 218. CIRCLE (vicious)

direct COGNITION, 154, 165"167.

415-417. renVx

Mill's moderns rules

40

idea

89,90; reject it 35, 3^5

of

and

for
;

its

application3635
;

COMPOSITION,

Schelling
439, 440 ; for judgment and Suarcz 249. 282
on

on

fallacyof
synonym of

thinking,

40, 41 ; its connection

with

COMPREHENSION,

34"36, predicate
CONVERSION

subject
-287
;

40"42. of 34i,

propositions
342-

298"303,
281.
see

whole

of

CONVICTIONS,

CONCEPTION,
sion.

apprehen

as

judgments
with

252

confused
ste

opinions 251

CONCEPT,

idea.

INDEX.

COPULA,
definition 266-268.
of

indirect 423, 424

262 ;
to

mixed
nature
a

423

its relation

propositions
77
n.

of 419,
a

420, 422"424,

priori and
423;
423
;

posteriori422,

CUKATION,

of eternity

pure

DEDUCTION, its relation induction,

400;

relative 424.
to

370,

DENIAL,
ment

synonym

for

judg

moderns'

estimate

of

364, DIALECTIC
DICHOTOMY
; ;

250. 28.

365;

reasoning,synonym
sciences
value

for 94

DICTUM basis

DE

of,56, 57, 463, 464

379
;
"

Aristotle
of

syllogismsof

NULLO, 316 ;/. ; syllogisms 316, 339,

ET

234. OMNI

author

of

of 474 483. DEFINITION 474"438 accidental defective

202
"

; ;

379; moderns'

neglect of 316, 365.

Mill's method SPECIFICA of

204

DIFFERENCE,
390-393.
;
to

218

;
"

202 descriptive

204

DIFFERENTIA

172,

division,its relation
231
;

226,

i?3

1^3.
353
"

essential Hamilton dation

204,
on

205

DILEMMA, DIVISION,
;

356.

46,

47

identity (principle of),foun

of 42. 43
;

accidental 232, 233 ; cross-division 239 ;

definition,relation
231
;

to

226,

logical205 ; metaphor, by
222

means

of

221,

dichotomy, method disparate242 ;

divisions
of fallacy of 230, 440"443 231
;

of 234 ;
;

metaphysical 204, 205

nature

of 197 ;
220,
221

negative
nominal

197

"

200;
; ;

judgment synonym logical 229, 231 ;

for 249 ;
;

practical 211, 212 physical204, 205

proper 205 ; real 197, 200
rules for
212
" "

metaphysical 231
moral 231
;

202

; ;

of principles physical231
rules of
"

240;

242

224
means 21

synonym,

by 196,

219 ;
;

per

for 233 244 sal turn 242 ; 231

;

theoretical
value

210,

1 ;

verbal wholes

of

197, 206"210

wholes, treated by 228, 229. DEMONSTRATION,

absolute
424
;

DOUHT, EFFECT,

by 228, 229. definition of 418.

meta

treated

direct 423, 424 ;

physical and physical397, 398.

empirical423 ; of),foun.dentity (principal

tUlion of 42, 43;

356"359, 429 EHCHIREM 359, 360. 4" EQUIVOCATION 43.'

ENTHYMEMK

rKDEX.

jubalternate
summum

176"179; 176, 178, 187.

the fourth

Platonic

158"60;
168.

transcendental

GOUDIN 337-

on

GRAMMAR,

of: figure IDENTITY, principle causation of) its (principle its relation to logic relation to 76, 77 ; contradiction of), (principle relation
to

43

"

HABITUS
"9.

predicament

188

definitions Hamilton's moderns'

and

49 ; demonstra
on on

tions founded

42, 43

HAMILTON
on,

(Sir W.), his ideas

or

error
error on

45"49
;
on

44

apprehension
123"129,

conception
146;;.;
"

propositionsfounded
; 52, 53, 67"70 of 42, 43 statement ;

49,

132"139,

concepts

46

"

48, 123

129

contradiction

(principle of)
;
"

tautology
52;

not

note

of

51,

36;
definition

46, 47

truth, its relation to, 53.

identity(principleof) 45
49;

induction

378 (incomplete) 46
"

phantasms

48, 1 23"

29 ;

418. IGNORATIO 1 448"459. ideas ; see IMAGE, intellectual, see sensible, phantasms.
IGNORANCE,
ELENCH

definition of

quantificationof

predicate IMAGINATION,
animals
;

285"287 ; species infiina185, 186 thought 123 129 ;

"

possess

98, 99,

ii/

"

120;

characteristics of 101,
definition of 101,
102

102

univcrsals HARPER

146

"., 152, 153.

(Fr). quoted 48.

on

impression on
35
;

HEGEL,
on

contradictories
479.

phantasms
107, 108.

98, 99 ; engendered
uses

by
of

truth

HYPOTHESIS,
certitude 254; confused with

IMPOSSIBLE,
253,
word 40.

different

INDIVIDUAL, unity of 143,

INFERENCE,
synonym
for

144.
rea

originof 252, 253.

soning 94, INDUCTION,

IDEAS

concepts), of 95, 98, 99, description

"

Cor

Aristotle's idea of 105 of

107;
Irom

complete deduction,
or

formal how
;

366 ; 368
"

374 ;
to

related

errors

false

notions

370"400

113,

logic treats
Hamilton's
123"129;

120-139; of
error

incomplete or material,Aqui
9 ;
on nas

(St.Thomas)
idea
379,

on

46"48,
view
of

Aristotle's

of

378 376

"

Mill's

nominalistic
diiler

386-400; certaintyattainable
"401
;

by 399

129-139;

phantasms

from

105

Catholic lect of

philosophers' neg 379"386;

ixnnx.

49*

estimate

to

have

of

397

"

stages
249;

in

formation
of

of

247,

401,475"483;
Hamilton
en

378

suspension
synonyms uncertain

246,
a

247 250
;

logic

and

relation

syllogism, their to 379 382,386,

"

for 249,

synthetical,see
247
;

posteriori;
of

387, 398,
Mansel
on

399

; ;

378

word, double
of

meaning

246,

Mill's Mill's
ment

exaggeration 480"483 ;
methods of 390 390
;
;
"

378,

247.

agree

KANT,

his doctrine 35, 139

on,
;

389,

antinomies 393
;

of of

difference residue
395

contradiction 35;

(principle

of

variation

393"395
401
; ;

syntheticalpropositions61
70, 260.

"

rapid

400,

Socratic
fluence

404

spirit of,its
475"483
uses

growth
;

and

in

186, 187. KNOWLEDGE,

and 68 explicit implicit perfectingnature 305 ; o f 128. relativity 127,
"

KINDS

364, 365, 374,375,

the word

70;

of

366, 367.
second

INTENTIONS,

first and

165"168. JUDGMENT, apprehension, its

with
247,

LANGUAGE,
and

relation
4,

to

thought
97.

logic 3,

96,

LAWS,
connection of Association
a

248
a

see analytical,

priori, cer
252
"

posteriori 384, 385 ; 386.

and

469, 470 ; a priori

of

54,

tain 247
convictions

physical, certainty
and
a

385,

254
;

;
see

contingent, see
definition division immediate
of of

posteriori j
;

also

principle.
On,

94, 247

LlBEUATORE

description of 95, 246"248 expression imprudent

"252;
260 ; 250 of 245, 246. 261
"

incomplete induction, 379; on genius and its conclusions

406.
LOCKE
a

254, 255
and

conceptualist
and formal

152 8

".

prudent 250

LOGIC,

applied
of 9 ;
; art

"

14,

logic treats
mediate necessary,

23
or

382,383;
science?
;

254, 255
see a

16, 20

"

25

p" iori;
"

artificial22
;

aspect of treated
;

opinions
a

and
a

252

254

priori
"260

and
;

posteriori 255 imprudent

250

in present volume 10 definitions of 23, 25"27 divisions

Docens

of 95, 96 ;

prudent
-252; relation before

and

Logic a
2

22,

25 ;

end of
terms

of

perceived
;

errors

combated

by
206
-210

2,
;

no,

248, 249

14, 21,

196,

INDEX.

formal

and

applied 8"14, 23,

;
to

moderns'

errors

on

481

3"2. 333 ; importance of 1,2, 14 induction, its relation

-388;
grammar and

483;
a

priori and
-483
;

posteriori47 483
;

380

scholastic

475
and

"

language, its
with
J

connection 97, 194"197 innate 22 ;

3, 4,

96,

synthetic analytic *"2 463, 471"483.

MENDIVE
on

incomplete

in.

duction
grammar,

379. excluded
79, 80

language
194"197

and

its

MIDDLE,
of principle
of MILL

connection
;
see

with

3, 4,

96,

applied ; metaphysics, its relation

material, 8;
natural
22

syllogisms 314, 315. (J.S.),his doctrine of,

and
causes

to

causation

74

"

7 f

80"87;
;
"

contradiction
"91
;

of)"9 (principle
139
;
"

of 30 principles 33 ; its relation psychology, to/

ideas kinds

129
1

"

8;
science science
or

induction
art?
of 95,

378, 480

483

16, 20 96 ;
to

"

25 ;
3, 14;
9
"

86, 187;
of 26 ;
"

logic,definition
nominalism numerical
n.

thought,its relation
truth, its relation
204,

to

129

139 ; 66

14,

propositions

205,
et Doc

269"272,
f us

382,
a 22

;
"

383;
Utens

Logica
of the

word, meanings

3, 27,

posteriori methods 47$ 483; (fundamental) 80 principles

91
;

"

MANSKL

(Dean)
of principle

on

induction

378;
on

mean subject and predicate, ing of 282 n. ; of) 80 uniformity(principle

"

contradiction

88;
universals his
MINOR

35;
on

theology 35.
sensible, 101.
221,222,409"411.
of 41, 42;
to

MEMORY,

148 150; inconsistency 149, 150. of syllogism 314, 315.

"

METAPHOR,

MODALS
MODES MOODS

290
of of

"

292.

METAPHYSICS, being, foundation logic,its relation

propositions 291. syllogisms 331

8 ;

336.
NOMINALISM, Anselm on (St.)
modern kinds 186
129
"

province of 8.
METHOD, synthetic 462, analytic and 46^, 471"483 ; certitude to be got by 467 ;
definition and division of 462;

148
139
to

; to

apprehension according
;

according
;

modem

importance la*rs of 465

of
"

461
;

474

mediaeval

*nd

nnxlern

148 ;

refutation
139;

of

modern

129

"

PORT

ROYAL tion of

LOGIC,

its defini

sensationalism,
to

its

relation

POSITION,
189.

logic 26. a predicament

188,

149;

universals "150,
e

according
158
Mill.
;

to

148

PREDICABLES,
account

of

(detailed)
168
"

171

"

also

186;
account

OPINION,
definition exalted "254. of

in general

into

417, 418 convittions

predicaments
,

contrasted

171 ; with

252

190

"

192.

PREDICAMENTS,
account

OPPOSITION

of

propositions

of

187

"

293

190

"298.
PARALOGISM 414 "., 415, law of 67. 433.

predicables contrasted
190"192.

with

PREDICATE,
definition distribution of 262 of
;

PARCIMONY,

PART, essential, integral, homoge

neous

276
its

propositions,
266, 267
; ;

279 ; relation
"

to

and

heterogeneous
204, 226 of 226
"

230;

metaphysical
moral 231
;

231

quantification of 283 287 word, its ambiguity 263.

"

PREMISSES,
"

physical
PASSION,
ments

204,
one 1

230.

assumed

the

predica
101.

unduly 311, conclusion, its relation

"312; and

312
to

310

88, 189.
sensible

PERCEPTION,
PETITIO

major, minor,
"315;

middle

^13

PRINCIPII

456"459.
of

PHANTASMS,
characteristics
"

probability
98, 99, 105
137,
on

and

signs, kinds syllogisms).

of

356"

120

(see also
117
"

359 5 rules for

common

120,

Hamilton's

doctrine

138 46
"

PRINCIPLES,

analytical and
"70 ; of causation of 72
"

synthetical 58
79, 80"88 91 ;
;

48, 123"129;

ideas, contrasted
117
;

with

105

"

consistency
"

90,

Mill's

nominalistic
;

view

on

of contradiction

33- -42, 307

;

89
;

129"139

ieproduction
PHILOSOPHY,

of
no

102.

first 30 33, 80"91, of identity 42 53

"

in change of 481 doctrines 483. PLACE, a predicament iSS, 189. PLATO,

"

of

middle, excluded

79, 80;

a posteriori 53, 54, 58"70 ; a priori 49, 53, 54, 5s" 7" \ synthetical 58 70;
"

his
on

name

for

logic
ideas

28

;
"

universal

158

160.

of

tautological 51, uniformity So

of

52 ;
"

87.
"

PLURIUM

INTERROGANTIUM,

PROBABILITY,

fallacy of 459,
PO"PHYRIAN
TRFE

460.
180
"

description
182, in
s.

425

431

premiss

359.

404

INDEX.

PROOF,
foundation direct PROPERTY. '75or

pure

290 "292

of all 32

"

35 ;
32
;

positive31,
or .1

qualityof 266 ; of quantification

283-287
;

272-279^

indirect

negative 31. pretlicable 174,

singular274

PROPOSITION,
affirmative and

subcontiary and 295-298 ; negative 267 58 synthetical 2.89, 307

;

subaltern a3
2"x"

subject of
287;

272-279, 70,

"

-269
"

analyticaland
/o;

58 synthetical

"

antecedents conditional

of

tautological51 52 ; of 262, 263 ; terms

true

categorical 28S

269

"

272

288, 289
;

universal 272-

279,

346, 347
444.

conjunctive290
consequent

PROSODY,
;

fallacyof 443,
7, 8.

of 307

PSYCHOLOGY

contingent
266, 267
contrary
;

and

necessary
or PROPOSITIONS

and
;

contradictory QUALITY
266.
5

294"298
conversion

298-303, 341 copula of 266, 267 ; definition of 261 263 ; disjunctive 289, 290 ; divisions of 266"279, 288"
"

of

QUALITY, a prcdi"ament 189. OF QUANTIFICATION

POSITIONS

188,
PRO

272"279,

283

-287.
I

292;
elements

QUESTION,
QUIDDITY,

of 264
;

-266

fallacy of 459, 460. definition of 5.

on

false

269"272

QUINTJI.IAN
290;

Enthynieine

288 hypothetical

import of 281" 287 ; of 267 ; impossiblematter of) its re identity (principle

lation
to

REALISTS.

158"
law

160. 77"

49

REASON, 276
;

of sufficient

indeterminate

274-

79-

judgments expressed by 246, REASONING, 261 ; deductive, see a priori; modal for 94; and pure 290"292 deduction, synonym ; definition of 94, 306 ; negative 267 269;
"

numerical

66

//.

;
"

oppositionof 293

298 ; particular273, 275, 346, 347 ; parts of 262, 263 ; a postetioriand a priori 53, 54, 61"70, 270"272 ; predicate of 262, 263, 276 287 ; 279, 281 of 266,267 ; matter possible
" "

of 305 description expressionof 310,

"

307 ;
313
; ;

foundation

of 307
see a

"

309

inductive,
laws

posteriori j

of 310" 312 ; its relation to 310, syllogism,

3'3J
a

posteriori and

priori 30^

475-483

INDEX.

495

Rfl'UCTION per
contra

OF

SYLLOGISMS,

SOPHISM
SORITES

414,

415,

433.

and

per
5
"

itnfios;

360-363.
;

sibile 342"345 methods of 339

SPECIES,
definition of 171, 175

347

particular propositions 346,

347-

itijhna 176, 179,

191
;

80, 185, 1 86,

RELATION,
189.

predicament iSS,
of 395.

subalternate
SPENCER

176, 179, 180.

(HERKERT),

RESIDUES, Mill'smethod

agnosticism of 139 ; of contradic principle rejects

tion

36
on

;
1

SCEPTICISM,
errors 1 on

arising
"

from 113,
;

of symbolicconceptions

16",

apprehension
129,
of

SUAREZ,
SUBALTERNS

(lie

prmnple
40, 41.

of

14,

127

138, 139

contradiction 295.
OF

exaggeration

induction
of 474"

374, 375i 477"482. method SCHOLASTICS, 483SCIENCE,

SUP.JECT
definition

PROPOSITIONS,
;

of 262 of

distribution extension
"

analytic and 465

art ;
on

synthetic 463
17 "., 19,
20
"

as

the

of 274 of matter

278, 279 ; 276, 283

"

propositions

266;
;
20

Aristotle

contrasted and

with

17

deductive

inductive
J

56,

287 ; meaning of 282 of (juanlity propositions de termined by 272.

"

57, 463, 464, 475-4^3 definition of 420 ;

SYLLOGISM,
to

demonstration, its relation

420
;

categoricaland simple 313 ; hypothetical ;md compound

313,

348,

se(|. ; 349, 353

inductive
57,

and

deductive

56,

conditional

350
:

463, 464, 475-483;

conjunctive
deductive definition demonstrative
"424
;

of 30, 33 ; natural 55, 56 ; a posteriori and

"

laws

379) 380 ; of 313 ; 413,

414,

priori 54 475"483 ; 57, 462"465, and speculative 23, practical

a

419

24

descriptive314, 315 ; dialectic or epichirem 359,

360
dilemma
;

synthetic and
465, 474"483
term,
SENSATION SENSE 99, limited
100. 100.

analytic463
;
use

"

353

"

356
" "

of 421,

422.

disjunctive 350
enthymeme

353 359

; ;

356

SENSATIONALISM,
causes

epichirem 359, 360 ; figuresof 324" 339;

to

according
its

396, 397

foundation

of

316,

339,

379,

Nominalism,
149.

relation

to

38o;
inductive

368"371,

379"

SIMILARITY

136
on

n.

382;
404.
matter

SOCRATES,

induction

of 412"431;

40*

ttiDEX.

major, minor, and

3'4, 315;
moods of 332
"

middle

of

TONGIORGI duction

on

incomplete
168.

in

336; polysyllogism363; of 31 5, 316; principles probable 414, 424-431

its relation reasoning,
to

379. TRANSCENDENTALS TRUISMS

316.
and
on

TRUTH,
;

formal 310,

material
;
as

272 ;
to
us

313;
reduction rhetorical
rules of

479 in itself and

4i,42;

Hegel

known

of 359

"

347 ;
;

358 ; 316 323

"

identity of),its re (principle

lation
to

53

.sophistical 433
Sorites
terms

inductive
;
on

its sjvrit,
us

influence
;

360

"

362

365, 477-482
to

of 314, 315.
219.

known
42;

and

in itself 41,
to

SYNONYM

SYNTHESIS,
474-

when

used

471"

logic,its
204,

relation

9"14,

205,
;
;

269-272,

382,

383 TAUTOLOGY,
5', 52-

logical 270
in

propositions

material

and

formal

272

metaphysical 41,
necessary
1 1.

42 ;

THEOLOGY,
apparent
Mansel's

contradictions
;

of,
UNIFORMITY
of nature's action

explained 40

idea of 35,
"

unchangeable 481

36 ; 483.
of 5
"

THOUGHT,
animals
7 ;

8^-87, 9". UNITY,

actual 226 ;
on

without power

Aristotle

143 n.\
227 ; 228 ;

contradiction
foundation
41
;

of) a (principle
of

comprehensive
extensive individual
227,

34,

35,

40,

143, 144 ;
"

exactness

of 2, 3 ;
error on

logical 227
123
"

Hamilton's
129
;

229 ; metaphysical 226

"

231 ;

of 11"14 ; its relation language, laws its relation logic, moderns' 375; ideas
to
on

231 ; nature's 145. seq. ;

to
"

moral

96
14 ;

potential 227"229; physical226 230;

"

365, 374,

ofuniversals

143

"

162,

operations 8;

of 93 ;
to

UNIVERSALS, Thomas) Aquinas (St.

7, Aristotle
on

on

164;

psychology,its relation
of relativity
uses

146

Champeaux
113,
114,

(William of) en
145"147,
;

127"

160;
on conceptualists

129; of the word

a

4"7.

TIME,

predicament 188, 189.

i57, 158 ; direct and reflex 153"157