FREE BOOKS

Author's List




PREV.   NEXT  
|<   129   130   131   132   133   134   135   136   137   138   139   140   141   142   143   144   145   146   147   148   149   150   151   152   153  
154   155   156   157   158   159   160   161   162   163   164   165   166   167   168   169   170   171   172   173   174   175   176   177   178   >>   >|  
No S is P-- we see at once that "Every war increases taxation" is of the form All S is M. Does the other sentence yield the Major Premiss No M is P, when M represents the increasing of taxation, _i.e._, a class bounded by that attribute? We see that the last sentence of the argument is equivalent to saying that "Nothing that increases taxation is long popular"; and this with the Minor yields the conclusion in Celarent. Nothing that increases taxation is long popular. Every war increases taxation. No war is long popular. Observe, now, what in effect we have done in thus reducing the argument to the First Figure. In effect, a general principle being alleged as justifying a certain conclusion, we have put that principle into such a form that it has the same predicate with the conclusion. All that we have then to do in order to inspect the validity of the argument is to see whether the subject of the conclusion is contained in the subject of the general principle. Is war one of the things that increase taxation? Is it one of that class? If so, then it cannot long be popular, long popularity being an attribute that cannot be affirmed of any of that class. Reducing to the first figure, then, amounts simply to making the predication of the proposition alleged as ground uniform with the conclusion based upon it. The minor premiss or applying proposition amounts to saying that the subject of the conclusion is contained in the subject of the general principle. Is the subject of the conclusion contained in the subject of the general principle when the two have identical predicates? If so, the argument falls at once under the _Dictum de Omni et Nullo_. Two things may be noted concerning an argument thus simplified. 1. It is not necessary, in order to bring an argument under the _dictum de omni_, to reduce the predicate to the form of an extensive term. In whatever form, abstract or concrete, the predication is made of the middle term, it is applicable in the same form to that which is contained in the middle term. 2. The quantity of the Minor Term does not require special attention, inasmuch as the argument does not turn upon it. In whatever quantity it is contained in the Middle, in that quantity is the predicate of the Middle predicable of it. These two points being borne in mind, the attention may be concentrated on the Middle Term and its relations with the extremes. That the predicate may be left u
PREV.   NEXT  
|<   129   130   131   132   133   134   135   136   137   138   139   140   141   142   143   144   145   146   147   148   149   150   151   152   153  
154   155   156   157   158   159   160   161   162   163   164   165   166   167   168   169   170   171   172   173   174   175   176   177   178   >>   >|  



Top keywords:
conclusion
 
argument
 
taxation
 

subject

 
contained
 

principle

 

predicate

 

popular

 
general
 

increases


Middle

 
quantity
 

alleged

 

things

 

amounts

 

middle

 

attention

 

predication

 
proposition
 

attribute


sentence

 

Nothing

 

effect

 

dictum

 
reduce
 

extensive

 
Premiss
 

simplified

 

abstract

 

concentrated


special

 

predicable

 
require
 

applicable

 

points

 

relations

 

extremes

 

concrete

 

identical

 

validity


inspect

 

Celarent

 

yields

 

popularity

 

equivalent

 

increase

 

Observe

 

justifying

 

reducing

 

affirmed