登陆注册
15451600000004

第4章 4

After these distinctions we now state by what means, when, and how every syllogism is produced; subsequently we must speak of demonstration. Syllogism should be discussed before demonstration because syllogism is the general: the demonstration is a sort of syllogism, but not every syllogism is a demonstration.

Whenever three terms are so related to one another that the last is contained in the middle as in a whole, and the middle is either contained in, or excluded from, the first as in or from a whole, the extremes must be related by a perfect syllogism. I call that term middle which is itself contained in another and contains another in itself: in position also this comes in the middle. By extremes I mean both that term which is itself contained in another and that in which another is contained. If A is predicated of all B, and B of all C, A must be predicated of all C: we have already explained what we mean by 'predicated of all'. Similarly also, if A is predicated of no B, and B of all C, it is necessary that no C will be A.

But if the first term belongs to all the middle, but the middle to none of the last term, there will be no syllogism in respect of the extremes; for nothing necessary follows from the terms being so related; for it is possible that the first should belong either to all or to none of the last, so that neither a particular nor a universal conclusion is necessary. But if there is no necessary consequence, there cannot be a syllogism by means of these premisses. As an example of a universal affirmative relation between the extremes we may take the terms animal, man, horse; of a universal negative relation, the terms animal, man, stone. Nor again can syllogism be formed when neither the first term belongs to any of the middle, nor the middle to any of the last. As an example of a positive relation between the extremes take the terms science, line, medicine: of a negative relation science, line, unit.

If then the terms are universally related, it is clear in this figure when a syllogism will be possible and when not, and that if a syllogism is possible the terms must be related as described, and if they are so related there will be a syllogism.

But if one term is related universally, the other in part only, to its subject, there must be a perfect syllogism whenever universality is posited with reference to the major term either affirmatively or negatively, and particularity with reference to the minor term affirmatively: but whenever the universality is posited in relation to the minor term, or the terms are related in any other way, a syllogism is impossible. I call that term the major in which the middle is contained and that term the minor which comes under the middle. Let all B be A and some C be B. Then if 'predicated of all' means what was said above, it is necessary that some C is A. And if no B is A but some C is B, it is necessary that some C is not A. The meaning of 'predicated of none' has also been defined. So there will be a perfect syllogism. This holds good also if the premiss BC should be indefinite, provided that it is affirmative: for we shall have the same syllogism whether the premiss is indefinite or particular.

But if the universality is posited with respect to the minor term either affirmatively or negatively, a syllogism will not be possible, whether the major premiss is positive or negative, indefinite or particular: e.g. if some B is or is not A, and all C is B. As an example of a positive relation between the extremes take the terms good, state, wisdom: of a negative relation, good, state, ignorance. Again if no C is B, but some B is or is not A or not every B is A, there cannot be a syllogism. Take the terms white, horse, swan: white, horse, raven. The same terms may be taken also if the premiss BA is indefinite.

Nor when the major premiss is universal, whether affirmative or negative, and the minor premiss is negative and particular, can there be a syllogism, whether the minor premiss be indefinite or particular: e.g. if all B is A and some C is not B, or if not all C is B. For the major term may be predicable both of all and of none of the minor, to some of which the middle term cannot be attributed.

Suppose the terms are animal, man, white: next take some of the white things of which man is not predicated-swan and snow: animal is predicated of all of the one, but of none of the other. Consequently there cannot be a syllogism. Again let no B be A, but let some C not be B. Take the terms inanimate, man, white: then take some white things of which man is not predicated-swan and snow: the term inanimate is predicated of all of the one, of none of the other.

Further since it is indefinite to say some C is not B, and it is true that some C is not B, whether no C is B, or not all C is B, and since if terms are assumed such that no C is B, no syllogism follows (this has already been stated) it is clear that this arrangement of terms will not afford a syllogism: otherwise one would have been possible with a universal negative minor premiss. A similar proof may also be given if the universal premiss is negative.

Nor can there in any way be a syllogism if both the relations of subject and predicate are particular, either positively or negatively, or the one negative and the other affirmative, or one indefinite and the other definite, or both indefinite. Terms common to all the above are animal, white, horse: animal, white, stone.

It is clear then from what has been said that if there is a syllogism in this figure with a particular conclusion, the terms must be related as we have stated: if they are related otherwise, no syllogism is possible anyhow. It is evident also that all the syllogisms in this figure are perfect (for they are all completed by means of the premisses originally taken) and that all conclusions are proved by this figure, viz. universal and particular, affirmative and negative. Such a figure I call the first.

同类推荐
  • 佛说满愿子经

    佛说满愿子经

    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。
  • 皇朝经世文编_4

    皇朝经世文编_4

    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。
  • 书法辑要

    书法辑要

    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。
  • 清微元降大法

    清微元降大法

    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。
  • 巢林笔谈

    巢林笔谈

    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
  • 王俊凯之永恒的爱

    王俊凯之永恒的爱

    真是不是冤家不聚头,你问为什么,因为那个万众瞩目的大明星王俊凯!!!第一次写小说,写的不好请见谅,谢啦!!☆⌒(*^-゜)v
  • 仙魔夙缘

    仙魔夙缘

    她终究是逃不过他为她设下的陷井,他在将她推下万丈深渊的前一刻,冲他一笑,绝美的容颜,花了她的眼,他说,“你死,她活!”万丈的深渊,她以为会就此沉沦,这样也可,她心已亡,可为何还要救她,看着最好的朋友为救她灰飞烟灭,原本消亡的心死灰复燃,可只有无尽的恨,无尽的怨!她所受承受的痛,她要他千倍万倍的偿还!
  • 完爆世界

    完爆世界

    【2016年百万人追更的逗逼神作,2017年即将登顶的经典网文(纯属吹牛,切勿当真)】乡村小青年赫乌因为某种猥亵,意外破碎虚空,来到异世。在人吃人的森林法则里,赫乌凭借系统,完爆一切惹他的,被他惹的敌人。“靠,爆出了猴子”“少年郎,俺老孙是齐天大圣孙悟空是也”“日,爆出了美女”“官人,讨厌,奴家是嫦娥,你不记得人家啦?”……赫乌咧着嘴,流着口水左拥右抱仙女神女,指挥着一众超强打手冲锋陷阵。生活如此美好,根本停不下来。所以【此书值得万千书友拥有】。
  • 十段传奇

    十段传奇

    围棋最高的段位是职业九段,但在天才李柏来看来,全都是手下败将,因为他是这个地球上唯一的围棋十段。2004年一天下午,年仅6岁的李柏来在平隆县街边看到有人下围棋,指出了一处极难发现的失误,被下棋的业余5段周教练所察觉,这个孩子具有惊人的天赋。在周教练的追问下,李柏来说自己的远房亲戚三年前曾经在自己家里暂住,教了自己1个月的围棋,后来就再也没有碰过围棋。三年前只学了1个月,三年来没碰棋,竟还有业余2段的水平,这让周教练感到不可思议。这个“远房亲戚”到底是何方神圣?李柏来的惊人围棋天分会有多大的成就?
  • 妖妃嫁到:仙君,别跑!

    妖妃嫁到:仙君,别跑!

    扑倒郁倾尘、强吻郁倾尘、调戏郁倾尘是玉绯容的终生理想。调戏玉绯容、强吻玉绯容、扑倒玉绯容是郁倾尘的一生必干。她跟在他后面转转悠悠十几年,就是为了后来的某一天他能回头收了她。可在那一天后,玉绯容每天都在重复着一种名叫造孩子的运动中。那时的玉绯容只想扶着腰休息一天。【小剧场】玉绯容盯着正在奶孩子的郁倾尘,作死道:“夫君,你奶孩子时好贤惠哦。”星眸里满满是羡慕。“我不想孩子再在你手中甩飞。”“....”讨厌。
  • 现代魔战

    现代魔战

    写了一些小段子,每章后面都会有一个,希望大家喜欢。再说说小说内容:万年前,地球一战尽毁,万年后,高中生吕闲因一次误闯,进入了一个魔法结界,从此和修仙校花纠葛在了一起,从此踏上了修仙之路,但他不知道,从此自己将被卷入各种神话传说和异界纷争之中。
  • 后来,我们

    后来,我们

    不经意的吻,是否注定了一生?九年的光阴啊,她与他又再次遇见。今非昔比,但却也非有缘无分,后来又是一场爱,无法散场。还记得下雨时为你买伞的女孩吗?还记得那泳池里的碰撞吗?“嘿,你那时候有喜欢的人吗?”“我有一个,他叫——许凡。”
  • 阴阳青丝发

    阴阳青丝发

    一根青丝引起千年浩劫,谁的头发能使人见阴阳,通鬼神?为何人间鬼怪四起?为何仙界不复存在?为何鬼界混乱不堪?本想浑浑噩噩度过一生的他,却被一根青丝扰乱,人生从而改变。青丝在手,能斗鬼神,能泡妞。
  • 绯闻巨星

    绯闻巨星

    一次误会让叶蓁蓁成了娱乐圈巨子的绯闻对象,接着事情都跟着不受控制起来……作为一个误打误撞步入娱乐圈的小白,面对层出不穷的层层挑战与威胁,叶蓁蓁能脱离险境获得真爱?还是在尔虞我诈中苟且偷生?
  • 不朽控星

    不朽控星

    一个猥琐的主角,遇到了一群天真的少女,会发生什么?一个天才控星师,如何对抗邪营的众多大将,如何保全天下。且看本书慢慢说来……