(2) Comparison, however correctly performed, is never the end, but only a means, of reasoning. XXXVIII--SYLLOGISM We have already had two distinct definitions of syllogism. According to the first it is the application of class-attributes to individuals known to belong to the class; according to the second it is the comparison of two things or terms by reference to a third which both resemble. When we arrive at the chapters in logic books devoted to the exposition of the syllogism in detail, we find that the theorems there discussed do not conform to either of those definitions. The only sort of syllogism that can be 'converted' is one consisting of two classifications, and a conclusion which predicates a classification, as thus-- _All Englishmen are Europeans; John Smith is an Englishman; therefore John Smith is a European._ Observe the difference between this theorem and that adduced in illustration of the Dictum (XXXVI). In the latter the first premise is a categorical judgment and so therefore is the conclusion; in the theorem just given the first premise is a classification, and the conclusion is necessarily a classification. We first remark that such an 'argument' is never met with in real spontaneous thinking--it occurs only in logic books. It is manufactured exclusively for Peripatetic consumption. The reason it is not to be found is simple--the conclusion it yields is a classification, and that is not enough for valid argument. In reasoning we may introduce a classification as the _minor premise_--that is, the proposition which brings the case under the precedent--but the applicate is never a general or class idea. It is one or more properties abstracted from the subject (whether the latter be a single object or general idea), and applied to the case. Merely to classify a case and so leave it would answer no rational purpose. Logicians urge in recommendation of this syllogism that it gives a certain conclusion. The premises being correct, the conclusion is infallibly true. No doubt it is, for in contemplating a thing we can mentally enter it into all the classes to which it appears to belong, whatever be their generality. Knowing the class European and the individual John Smith, we see at once that the latter is contained in the former, and we can do this without putting him first in the minor class English. It is like saying, 'The pavilion is in the garden, John Smith is in the pavilion, therefore he is in the garden.' Of course he is! The minor premise of a double classification is superfluous. The fact that such conclusions are certain, shows how nugatory they are. We are not certain of anything till it has been experienced. In legitimate reasoning the conclusion is never more than probable. The certainty of these double classifications shows that we are stating what we already know--not imagining an ideal addition to our positive knowledge.