登陆注册
26264800000018

第18章 16

Whenever one premiss is necessary, the other problematic, there will be a syllogism when the terms are related as before; and a perfect syllogism when the minor premiss is necessary. If the premisses are affirmative the conclusion will be problematic, not assertoric, whether the premisses are universal or not: but if one is affirmative, the other negative, when the affirmative is necessary the conclusion will be problematic, not negative assertoric; but when the negative is necessary the conclusion will be problematic negative, and assertoric negative, whether the premisses are universal or not.

Possibility in the conclusion must be understood in the same manner as before. There cannot be an inference to the necessary negative proposition: for 'not necessarily to belong' is different from 'necessarily not to belong'.

If the premisses are affirmative, clearly the conclusion which follows is not necessary. Suppose A necessarily belongs to all B, and let B be possible for all C. We shall have an imperfect syllogism to prove that A may belong to all C. That it is imperfect is clear from the proof: for it will be proved in the same manner as above. Again, let A be possible for all B, and let B necessarily belong to all C. We shall then have a syllogism to prove that A may belong to all C, not that A does belong to all C: and it is perfect, not imperfect: for it is completed directly through the original premisses.

But if the premisses are not similar in quality, suppose first that the negative premiss is necessary, and let necessarily A not be possible for any B, but let B be possible for all C. It is necessary then that A belongs to no C. For suppose A to belong to all C or to some C. Now we assumed that A is not possible for any B. Since then the negative proposition is convertible, B is not possible for any A. But A is supposed to belong to all C or to some C. Consequently B will not be possible for any C or for all C. But it was originally laid down that B is possible for all C. And it is clear that the possibility of belonging can be inferred, since the fact of not belonging is inferred. Again, let the affirmative premiss be necessary, and let A possibly not belong to any B, and let B necessarily belong to all C. The syllogism will be perfect, but it will establish a problematic negative, not an assertoric negative. For the major premiss was problematic, and further it is not possible to prove the assertoric conclusion per impossibile. For if it were supposed that A belongs to some C, and it is laid down that A possibly does not belong to any B, no impossible relation between B and C follows from these premisses. But if the minor premiss is negative, when it is problematic a syllogism is possible by conversion, as above; but when it is necessary no syllogism can be formed. Nor again when both premisses are negative, and the minor is necessary.

The same terms as before serve both for the positive relation-white-animal-snow, and for the negative relation-white-animal-pitch.

The same relation will obtain in particular syllogisms. Whenever the negative proposition is necessary, the conclusion will be negative assertoric: e.g. if it is not possible that A should belong to any B, but B may belong to some of the Cs, it is necessary that A should not belong to some of the Cs. For if A belongs to all C, but cannot belong to any B, neither can B belong to any A. So if A belongs to all C, to none of the Cs can B belong. But it was laid down that B may belong to some C. But when the particular affirmative in the negative syllogism, e.g. BC the minor premiss, or the universal proposition in the affirmative syllogism, e.g. AB the major premiss, is necessary, there will not be an assertoric conclusion. The demonstration is the same as before. But if the minor premiss is universal, and problematic, whether affirmative or negative, and the major premiss is particular and necessary, there cannot be a syllogism. Premisses of this kind are possible both where the relation is positive and necessary, e.g. animal-white-man, and where it is necessary and negative, e.g. animal-white-garment. But when the universal is necessary, the particular problematic, if the universal is negative we may take the terms animal-white-raven to illustrate the positive relation, or animal-white-pitch to illustrate the negative; and if the universal is affirmative we may take the terms animal-white-swan to illustrate the positive relation, and animal-white-snow to illustrate the negative and necessary relation.

Nor again is a syllogism possible when the premisses are indefinite, or both particular. Terms applicable in either case to illustrate the positive relation are animal-white-man: to illustrate the negative, animal-white-inanimate. For the relation of animal to some white, and of white to some inanimate, is both necessary and positive and necessary and negative. Similarly if the relation is problematic: so the terms may be used for all cases.

Clearly then from what has been said a syllogism results or not from similar relations of the terms whether we are dealing with ****** existence or necessity, with this exception, that if the negative premiss is assertoric the conclusion is problematic, but if the negative premiss is necessary the conclusion is both problematic and negative assertoric. [It is clear also that all the syllogisms are imperfect and are perfected by means of the figures above mentioned.]

同类推荐
  • 黄帝内经素问

    黄帝内经素问

    本书为公版书,为不受著作权法限制的作家、艺术家及其它人士发布的作品,供广大读者阅读交流。
  • 桂林风土记

    桂林风土记

    本书为公版书,为不受著作权法限制的作家、艺术家及其它人士发布的作品,供广大读者阅读交流。
  • 甚希有经

    甚希有经

    本书为公版书,为不受著作权法限制的作家、艺术家及其它人士发布的作品,供广大读者阅读交流。
  • R

    R

    本书为公版书,为不受著作权法限制的作家、艺术家及其它人士发布的作品,供广大读者阅读交流。
  • Beyond

    Beyond

    本书为公版书,为不受著作权法限制的作家、艺术家及其它人士发布的作品,供广大读者阅读交流。
热门推荐
  • 大神且行且珍惜

    大神且行且珍惜

    她宅女一枚,没事情除了打游戏还是打游戏,因此在游戏混的风生水起。为了参加夫妻PK大赛,某人果断的选择了闪婚,而对象居然会是某位大神!本以为会实行闪婚闪离的制度,可没想到大神的耐力那么好!又送嫁妆,又送神器的!最后还把人给送来了!“你,你,你欺人太甚!虐待我!”某大神眉头微微一挑,“我只记得我养了一只大白兔啊。”“……”正如一句话说得好,大神可远观而不可亵玩焉~
  • 至高能力

    至高能力

    一个对世界心存善念的少年,拥有与生俱来的最强能力,他一步步挣脱人世间的桎梏,蜕变为凌驾众生的神魔。而世界的改变,也正从此开始。“这个世界的绝望在于,我们每天只能眼睁睁地看着那些不公平在身边发生,看着罪恶在不远处徘徊,自己却无能为力。”“见义勇为的被骂作白痴,冷漠无情的被视为平常,直言无讳的被锁入牢狱,虚言奉承的被捧上高台……学会妥协的人越来越多,敢于抗争的人都已死在路上,或者遍体鳞伤。”“人,到底该作为一个傀儡活着,还是作为一个勇士死去?”-----------------------------一个末日背景下的都市异能故事,阅读过程中三观易碎,请自备胶水。
  • 穿回大唐做公主

    穿回大唐做公主

    柴绍闪身躲过李秀宁的剑,伸腿一勾把李秀宁绊倒在地。他顺势扑到李秀宁的身上,一手压住她的武器,一手按住她的肩膀。在李秀宁刚准备反抗的时候,他的双唇已经封住了李秀宁的嘴。“唔~唔~”李秀宁支吾的反抗徒劳无功。柴绍离开她的嘴唇,一脸坏笑的说:“给你三天时间考虑。做我的女人,你的天女教我罩了。不然的话,哼哼。”说完,他丢下李秀宁扬长而去。程咬金赶忙冲上去扶起李秀宁问:“神仙姐姐你没事吧?”李秀宁站起来骂道:“这孙子,他刚才,,,居然伸舌头!”正当天女教上下面面相觑的时候,派去攻打石家堡的王伯当带着人赶了回来。“报告教主,我们赶到的时候,石家堡已经被柴绍的人打下来了。”“又是这个柴绍!老娘跟他没完!”
  • 携恨公主遇救星

    携恨公主遇救星

    她冷酷无情,她可爱腹黑,她温柔任性,性格的蜕变,她们成了地狱的撒旦,理不清的纠纷,看不清的缘分,触不到的爱情,她们携恨而来,不惜一切,却只为复仇,仇恨是她们难以放弃的,但他们的莫名闯入,会不会是命运里的爱情……
  • 忍学

    忍学

    古人曾经说过:“行万里路,读万卷书。”然而对于现代人来说,行万里路容易,读万卷书则太难了。科技的车轮正以惊人的速度横扫世界,终日在电脑和千奇百怪的机器前忙碌的现代人,用电线、轨道、或航线,把地球变成了一个村落。点击鼠标,我们可以在世界的任何角落把自己粘贴出去。
  • 万能戒指异界行

    万能戒指异界行

    不一样的系统,不一样的异界之旅,带给你不一样的全新感受。且看主角如何凭借万能戒指在异界称雄,醉卧美人膝,醒掌天下权
  • 长腿叔叔

    长腿叔叔

    简·韦伯斯特(Jean Webster,1876-1916),美国人。1976年出生于纽约州的佛雷多尼亚一个充满文艺气息的家庭中,父亲从事出版工作,母亲是马克·吐温的侄女。在校期间,她就常常在巴萨女子大学校友杂志和地方新闻刊物投稿,并利用课余时间到孤儿院和感化院做社会服条。这段时间的所见所闻,成为她日后写作《长腿叔叔》的最佳素材。1912年,韦伯斯特出版小说《长腿叔叔》。在她众多作品中,《长腿叔叔》最受读者喜爱,此书后业被拍成电影,由当时最受欢迎的女明星担任女主角,使小说的影响更加深入。幸运女神忽然降临在孤女茱蒂身上,因为她写的一篇文章,孤儿院的一位匿名理事愿意资助她上大学,并培育她成为作家。
  • DOTA世界

    DOTA世界

    无意中穿越到DOTA的世界,等待着他的究竟是什么?众神已经沉睡,留下了种种传承,当众神再次苏醒,近卫与天灾,势必要再次打响战争……他,何去何从?
  • 恋爱物语:蜜糖恋糖果

    恋爱物语:蜜糖恋糖果

    恋爱物语系列之①——棠幽晴——软软的女汉子!朴棠叶——温柔的超人气明星美少年!为了最爱的明星,少女的蜕变让人着迷,一步一步登上天际,只为有资格站在他的身边呀不要这样看着我!人家会害羞的喵!
  • 不负青春若似梦

    不负青春若似梦

    【青春,总会有那么一个人,留在你的记忆里,永远……】青春,总是那样匆匆,时过境迁,我还是不知道,是你错过了我的梦,还是我伤了你初开的心。