First notions of logic (preparatory to the study of geometry) — John Shaqi
First notions of logic (preparatory to the study of geometry)De Morgan, Augustus
Philosophy
First notions of logic (preparatory to the study of geometry)
De Morgan, Augustus
Logic
If two things both agree with a third in any particular, they agree with
each other in the same; as, if A be of the same colour as X, and B of
the same colour as X, then A is of the same colour as B. Again, if A
differ from X in any particular in which B agrees with X, then A and B
differ in that particular. If A be not of the same colour as X, and B be
of the same colour as X, then A is not of the colour of B. But if A and
B both differ from X in any particular, nothing can be inferred; they
may either differ in the same way and to the same extent, or not. Thus,
if A and B be both of different colours from X, it neither follows that
they agree, nor differ, in their own colours.
The paragraph preceding contains the essential parts of all inference,
which consists in comparing two things with a third, and finding from
their agreement or difference with that third, their agreement or
difference with one another. Thus, Every A is X, every B is X, allows us
to infer that A and B have all those qualities in common which are
necessary to X. Again, from Every A is X, and ‘No B is X,’ we infer that
A and B differ from one another in all particulars which are essential
to X. The preceding forms, however, though they represent common
reasoning better than the ordinary syllogism, to which we are now
coming, do not constitute the ultimate forms of inference. Simple
_identity_ or _non-identity_ is the ultimate state to which every
assertion may be reduced; and we shall, therefore, first ask, from what
identities, &c., can other identities, &c., be produced? Again, since we
name objects in species, each species consisting of a number of
individuals, and since our assertion may include all or only part of a
species, it is further necessary to ask, in every instance, to what
extent the conclusion drawn is true, whether of all, or only of part?
Let us take the simple assertion, ‘Every living man respires;’ or, every
living man is one of the things (however varied they may be) which
respire. If we were to inclose all living men in a large triangle, and
all respiring objects in a large circle, the preceding assertion, if
true, would require that the whole of the triangle should be contained
in the circle. And in the same way we may reduce any assertion to the
expression of a coincidence, total or partial, between two figures.
Thus, a point in a circle may represent an individual of one species,
and a point in a triangle an individual of another species: and we may
express that the whole of one species is asserted to be contained or not
contained in the other by such forms as, ‘All the △ is in the ○’; ‘None
of the △ is in the ○’.
Any two assertions about A and B, each expressing agreement or
disagreement, total or partial, with or from X, and leading to a
conclusion with respect to A or B, is called a syllogism, of which X is
called the _middle term_. The plainest syllogism is the following:—
Public-domain text, read in full here on John Shaqi.
Reviews
Reviews
No reviews yet
Be the first to share your thoughts on this work.
Join the Discussion
Join the discussion
Sign in to leave a comment or review.
Sign InorCreate an account