to be a man, he _is not_ a man, and any assertion which can be made concerning men does not at all regard him, nor is affected as to its truth or falsity by anything in which he is concerned. The reviewer says that if the major premiss included the conclusion, “we should be able to affirm the conclusion without the intervention of the minor premiss; but every one sees that that is impossible.” It does not follow, because the major premiss contains the conclusion, that the words themselves must show all the conclusions which it contains, and which, or evidence of which, it presupposes. The minor is equally required on both theories. It is respecting the functions of the major premiss that the theories differ; whether that premiss merely affirms the existence of proof, or is itself part of the proof—whether the conclusion follows from the minor and major, or from the minor and the particular instances which are the foundation of the major. On either supposition, it is necessary that the new case should be perceived to be one coming within the description of those to which the previous experience is applicable; which is the purport of the minor premiss. When we say that all men are mortal, we make an assertion reaching beyond the sphere of our knowledge of individual cases; and when a new individual, Socrates, is brought within the field of our knowledge by means of the minor premiss, we learn that we have already made an assertion respecting Socrates without knowing it: our own general formula is, to that extent, for the first time _interpreted_ to us. But according to the reviewer’s theory, it is our having _made_ the assertion which proves the assertion: while I contend that the proof is not the assertion, but the grounds (of experience) on which the assertion was made, and by which it must be justified.