Logic -- Juvenile literature; Logic, Symbolic and mathematical
Let me mention, in conclusion, that you may perhaps meet with
logical treatises in which it is not assumed that any Thing EXISTS
at all, by "some x are y" is understood to mean "the Attributes x,
y are COMPATIBLE, so that a Thing can have both at once", and "no
x are y" to mean "the Attributes x, y are INCOMPATIBLE, so that
nothing can have both at once".
In such treatises, Propositions have quite different meanings
from what they have in our 'Game of Logic', and it will be well to
understand exactly what the difference is.
First take "some x are y". Here WE understand "are" to mean "are,
as an actual FACT"--which of course implies that some x-Things EXIST.
But THEY (the writers of these other treatises) only understand
"are" to mean "CAN be", which does not at all imply that any EXIST.
So they mean LESS than we do: our meaning includes theirs (for of
course "some x ARE y" includes "some x CAN BE y"), but theirs does
NOT include ours. For example, "some Welsh hippopotami are heavy"
would be TRUE, according to these writers (since the Attributes
"Welsh" and "heavy" are quite COMPATIBLE in a hippopotamus), but
it would be FALSE in our Game (since there are no Welsh hippopotami
to BE heavy).
Secondly, take "no x are y". Here WE only understand "are" to
mean "are, as an actual FACT"--which does not at all imply that no
x CAN be y. But THEY understand the Proposition to mean, not only
that none ARE y, but that none CAN POSSIBLY be y. So they mean
more than we do: their meaning includes ours (for of course "no x
CAN be y" includes "no x ARE y"), but ours does NOT include theirs.
For example, "no Policemen are eight feet high" would be TRUE
in our Game (since, as an actual fact, no such splendid specimens
are ever found), but it would be FALSE, according to these writers
(since the Attributes "belonging to the Police Force" and "eight
feet high" are quite COMPATIBLE: there is nothing to PREVENT a
Policeman from growing to that height, if sufficiently rubbed with
Rowland's Macassar Oil--which said to make HAIR grow, when rubbed
on hair, and so of course will make a POLICEMAN grow, when rubbed
on a Policeman).
Thirdly, take "all x are y", which consists of the two partial
Propositions "some x are y" and "no x are y'". Here, of course,
the treatises mean LESS than we do in the FIRST part, and more than
we do in the SECOND. But the two operations don't balance each
other--any more than you can console a man, for having knocked down
one of his chimneys, by giving him an extra door-step.
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