FREE BOOKS

Author's List




PREV.   NEXT  
|<   49   50   51   52   53   54   55   56   57   58   59   60   61   62   63   64   65   66   67   68   69   70   71   72   73  
74   75   76   77   78   79   80   81   82   83   84   85   86   87   88   89   90   91   92   93   94   95   96   97   98   >>   >|  
y, for in "P is predicated of every S" he virtually follows common speech.] II.--THE PRACTICE OF SYLLOGISTIC ANALYSIS. The basis of the analysis is the use of general names in predication. To say that in predication a subject is referred to a class, is only another way of saying that in every categorical sentence the predicate is a general name express or implied: that it is by means of general names that we convey our thoughts about things to others. "Milton is a great poet." "Quoth Hudibras, _I smell a rat_." _Great poet_ is a general name: it means certain qualities, and applies to anybody possessing them. _Quoth_ implies a general name, a name for persons _speaking_, connoting or meaning a certain act and applicable to anybody in the performance of it. _Quoth_ expresses also past time: thus it implies another general name, a name for persons _in past time_, connoting a quality which differentiates a species in the genus persons speaking, and making the predicate term "persons speaking in past time". Thus the proposition _Quoth Hudibras_, analysed into the syllogistic form S is in P, becomes S (Hudibras) is in P (persons speaking in past time). The Predicate term P is a class constituted on those properties. _Smell a rat_ also implies a general name, meaning an act or state predicable of many individuals. Even if we add the grammatical object of _Quoth_ to the analysis, the Predicate term is still a general name. Hudibras is only one of the persons speaking in past time who have spoken of themselves as being in a certain mood of suspicion.[1] The learner may well ask what is the use of twisting plain speech into these uncouth forms. The use is certainly not obvious. The analysis may be directly useful, as Aristotle claimed for it, when we wish to ascertain exactly whether one proposition contradicts another, or forms with another or others a valid link in an argument. This is to admit that it is only in perplexing cases that the analysis is of direct use. The indirect use is to familiarise us with what the forms of common speech imply, and thus strengthen the intellect for interpreting the condensed and elliptical expression in which common speech abounds. There are certain technical names applied to the components of many-worded general names, CATEGOREMATIC and SYNCATEGOREMATIC, SUBJECT and ATTRIBUTIVE. The distinctions are really grammatical rather than logical, and of little practical value.
PREV.   NEXT  
|<   49   50   51   52   53   54   55   56   57   58   59   60   61   62   63   64   65   66   67   68   69   70   71   72   73  
74   75   76   77   78   79   80   81   82   83   84   85   86   87   88   89   90   91   92   93   94   95   96   97   98   >>   >|  



Top keywords:

general

 
persons
 

speaking

 

analysis

 

Hudibras

 

speech

 
common
 

implies

 

connoting

 
Predicate

proposition

 
grammatical
 

meaning

 

predicate

 
predication
 
Aristotle
 
SUBJECT
 

claimed

 

obvious

 
distinctions

ATTRIBUTIVE

 

directly

 

learner

 

practical

 

suspicion

 

twisting

 

logical

 
uncouth
 

SYNCATEGOREMATIC

 

interpreting


condensed
 
argument
 
elliptical
 

perplexing

 

familiarise

 
indirect
 
direct
 

intellect

 

strengthen

 

worded


components

 
CATEGOREMATIC
 

ascertain

 

contradicts

 

abounds

 

expression

 

technical

 
applied
 

implied

 
convey