登陆注册
15451600000019

第19章 17

In the second figure whenever both premisses are problematic, no syllogism is possible, whether the premisses are affirmative or negative, universal or particular. But when one premiss is assertoric, the other problematic, if the affirmative is assertoric no syllogism is possible, but if the universal negative is assertoric a conclusion can always be drawn. Similarly when one premiss is necessary, the other problematic. Here also we must understand the term 'possible' in the conclusion, in the same sense as before.

First we must point out that the negative problematic proposition is not convertible, e.g. if A may belong to no B, it does not follow that B may belong to no A. For suppose it to follow and assume that B may belong to no A. Since then problematic affirmations are convertible with negations, whether they are contraries or contradictories, and since B may belong to no A, it is clear that B may belong to all A.

But this is false: for if all this can be that, it does not follow that all that can be this: consequently the negative proposition is not convertible. Further, these propositions are not incompatible, 'A may belong to no B', 'B necessarily does not belong to some of the As'; e.g. it is possible that no man should be white (for it is also possible that every man should be white), but it is not true to say that it is possible that no white thing should be a man: for many white things are necessarily not men, and the necessary (as we saw) other than the possible.

Moreover it is not possible to prove the convertibility of these propositions by a reductio ad absurdum, i.e. by claiming assent to the following argument: 'since it is false that B may belong to no A, it is true that it cannot belong to no A, for the one statement is the contradictory of the other. But if this is so, it is true that B necessarily belongs to some of the As: consequently A necessarily belongs to some of the Bs. But this is impossible.' The argument cannot be admitted, for it does not follow that some A is necessarily B, if it is not possible that no A should be B. For the latter expression is used in two senses, one if A some is necessarily B, another if some A is necessarily not B. For it is not true to say that that which necessarily does not belong to some of the As may possibly not belong to any A, just as it is not true to say that what necessarily belongs to some A may possibly belong to all A. If any one then should claim that because it is not possible for C to belong to all D, it necessarily does not belong to some D, he would make a false assumption: for it does belong to all D, but because in some cases it belongs necessarily, therefore we say that it is not possible for it to belong to all. Hence both the propositions 'A necessarily belongs to some B' and 'A necessarily does not belong to some B' are opposed to the proposition 'A belongs to all B'.

Similarly also they are opposed to the proposition 'A may belong to no B'. It is clear then that in relation to what is possible and not possible, in the sense originally defined, we must assume, not that A necessarily belongs to some B, but that A necessarily does not belong to some B. But if this is assumed, no absurdity results: consequently no syllogism. It is clear from what has been said that the negative proposition is not convertible.

This being proved, suppose it possible that A may belong to no B and to all C. By means of conversion no syllogism will result: for the major premiss, as has been said, is not convertible. Nor can a proof be obtained by a reductio ad absurdum: for if it is assumed that B can belong to all C, no false consequence results: for A may belong both to all C and to no C. In general, if there is a syllogism, it is clear that its conclusion will be problematic because neither of the premisses is assertoric; and this must be either affirmative or negative. But neither is possible. Suppose the conclusion is affirmative: it will be proved by an example that the predicate cannot belong to the subject. Suppose the conclusion is negative: it will be proved that it is not problematic but necessary. Let A be white, B man, C horse. It is possible then for A to belong to all of the one and to none of the other. But it is not possible for B to belong nor not to belong to C. That it is not possible for it to belong, is clear. For no horse is a man. Neither is it possible for it not to belong. For it is necessary that no horse should be a man, but the necessary we found to be different from the possible. No syllogism then results. A similar proof can be given if the major premiss is negative, the minor affirmative, or if both are affirmative or negative. The demonstration can be made by means of the same terms.

And whenever one premiss is universal, the other particular, or both are particular or indefinite, or in whatever other way the premisses can be altered, the proof will always proceed through the same terms. Clearly then, if both the premisses are problematic, no syllogism results.

同类推荐
  • 王制

    王制

    本书为公版书,为不受著作权法限制的作家、艺术家及其它人士发布的作品,供广大读者阅读交流。
  • 战争与和平

    战争与和平

    本书为公版书,为不受著作权法限制的作家、艺术家及其它人士发布的作品,供广大读者阅读交流。
  • 净土极信录

    净土极信录

    本书为公版书,为不受著作权法限制的作家、艺术家及其它人士发布的作品,供广大读者阅读交流。
  • 莲峰志

    莲峰志

    本书为公版书,为不受著作权法限制的作家、艺术家及其它人士发布的作品,供广大读者阅读交流。
  • 春晚谣

    春晚谣

    本书为公版书,为不受著作权法限制的作家、艺术家及其它人士发布的作品,供广大读者阅读交流。
热门推荐
  • 我的女神有点坏

    我的女神有点坏

    人?妖?好吧——半仙!她一朝梦醒,天下竟已风云万变。醒来的第一时间,她身上插着箭,居然还没死掉!然后,就在她刚刚想接受自己的和夏王朝祭祀身份,辅助这个魔魅君王,安定乱世时。满朝文武,甚至望眼天下,集体控诉她:扰乱朝纲,倾国妖孽!神马?她不就是一头的银发、银眉、银睫毛。
  • 大神魂

    大神魂

    一个浩瀚无尽的时空,强者无数,种族繁多,弱肉强食的世界,界与界之间的战争,没有规则,没有正义,没有猎人与猎物,只有鲜与血。
  • 讽江湖

    讽江湖

    千里黄云白日曛,北风吹雁雪纷纷。莫愁前路无知己,天下谁人不想砍你?
  • 殿——圣器

    殿——圣器

    第N个处女座,鬼知道我会不会继续写下去,不要抱太大希望。
  • 修仙路路无涯

    修仙路路无涯

    在天上飞是什么感觉?为了能在天空中飞行,8岁的韵泉踏上了修仙之路,10年一晃而过,韵泉到了筑基期,原来飞也只不过是这样,但修仙之路还是要继续走下去。“前面的路究竟是怎样的?”既然已经踏上了修仙之路,就要一直走下去,要么得道成仙,要么死后元神消散。PS:本人小白一枚,文笔不OK,坑品不OK,砖头请轻拍~
  • 异能独尊

    异能独尊

    这是个元素、机械、百变、武器、赤手以及精神的世界。所有不一样的东西都称之为扑克?这不是百变废柴系的么?,扑克还能控制?别逗了。没有!我没有在开玩笑!就是扑克,就是废柴,就是一个如此垃圾的魂魄也可以称霸!用心创造奇迹,尽管我是凡人。
  • 总裁大人,战斗吧

    总裁大人,战斗吧

    她,一个默默无闻的打工女,他,叱咤帝都的人物,某一天,接二连三的事发生了。“先生,有人欺负夫人。”手下说道,南宫轩咪着眼说:“以后这种事不要找我,直接废了他。”“先生,夫人肚子疼。”身为手下的麟祁,只能怎么说。南宫轩蹙眉说道:“芊芊肚子疼,你怎么不早说。”一眨眼,南宫轩已经到了夏芊的面前。他傲娇成性,却没想到,给一个呆萌女给办了。她,蠢萌蠢萌的,一代打工女,做梦多没有想到,竟然让一个帝都的掌控者,拜倒在她的石榴裙下。(本书纯属虚构)
  • 呆萌丫头很可爱,沐少别太冷

    呆萌丫头很可爱,沐少别太冷

    她是冷氏集团的千金,他是沐氏集团的少爷,他是她的辰哥哥,她是他的晴儿。她被人关在了教室里,他来救她,她记在了心里;她送给他的生日礼物,被他珍藏。
  • 仙剑女侠

    仙剑女侠

    十年前,她下山拯救芸芸众生,之后销声匿迹。十年后,一个现代人思维的她,又回到了山门。不同时间段的她,在同一个地点出现,将会擦出怎样的火花?————————————杀人越货、强取豪夺,不该是修仙者的选择。她觉得,修仙者的存在,是为了让很多人更好的活着!眼见世间苍生过着惨无天日的生活,而修仙者们又自相残杀,她如何以平庸的资质成为一代女仙侠,继而打造一个全新的完美国度!
  • 三生缘尽三生劫

    三生缘尽三生劫

    为什么,三世的缘分却促不成一世的爱恋。为什么,上天竟如此不公。第一世,他们同为神的后人,却因情感洗涤人心。第二世,他们同为皇家子嗣,却因天劫双双陨落。第三世,他们同为富家子弟,却因车祸阴阳两隔。为什么.......本文因有三世,每一世的风格都不一样,第一世比较虐,第二、第三世比较俏皮,希望大家喜欢我,这是大大的处女作,望支持!